News Article: The rise, fall, and stalled rebuild of Ken Holland’s Red Wings

Voodoo Glow Skulls

Formerly Vatican Roulette
Sponsor
Sep 27, 2017
5,351
2,698
Drafting good players isn't enough.
You need great ones.

Every team in the NHL drafts Larkins and Manthas and Athanasious.

Where are the Doughtys and Keiths and Toews and Kanes and Kopitars and Crosbys and Malkins etc.
We don't have

Kopitar and Keith were luck. The rest were top picks.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Kopitar and Keith were luck. The rest were top picks.

I don't know if they were luck.
Kopitar was a pretty well known commodity who slipped in the draft - a little like Vilardi this year.

Keith was more lucky. But he was a second round pick - not a 6th rounder.

But overall, I get your point.

And I think you get mine.

You need great players.
Conn Smythe winners.
Hart Trophy candidates.
Selke candidates.
Norris candidates.
Elite players. First line Olympian types.

And they usually come high in the draft.

Larkin and Mantha and Athanasiou .... that's a decent group of forwards.
But how is that any better than Colorado's group. Or Florida's group. Or Calgary's group.
And they're all bad to middle-of-the-road teams.

Counting on Svechnikov, and Rasmussen and Cholowski and Hronek seems especially foolish.
It was only a few years ago that Mrazek was going to be a hero. That Sproul and XO were were going to lead our D. Pulkkinen and Jurco were going to be first and second line forwards. Etc. Etc. Etc.

We need to be drafting for ELITE talent.
Tyler Wright's comments about "going for skill next year" were the dumbest comments I've ever heard from a professional hockey guy in a long time.
 

BinCookin

Registered User
Feb 15, 2012
6,160
1,377
London, ON
I honestly hope they're not fooling themselves with a postseason appearance. Even if they can make it into PO somehow, what's the point? We need top 10 picks ffs

I used to think that when interviews were conducted that this "anything can happen when you make the playoffs" was just something that they had to say. And that secretly deep down they were preparing for a rebuild...

Now I theorize this is case - what we hear is exactly what he is thinking. Usually he will not ever give his opinions properly on his own players to hide how he feels about them (not that you can really hide player valuations). But overall I think Ken Holland is hoping to make the playoffs. He does want to be competitive. He never wants to miss the playoffs, and he really does think rebuilds last a minimum of 6 years and that franchises suffer with no guarantee of getting players that pan out. Also you can lose the culture of the team, you purposely trade away even decent talent, and you end up with a prayer that you get the right draft picks. Edmonton, torornto and Buffalo are likely examples of waiting a decade for a team to be good again. He probably hates the thought of his team and city going through that, so tries to keep the team competitive while retaining most of his draft picks. the last few years he has slowly meandered towards selling at the deadline only due to the team's obvious position. But no he is not planning to rebuild with a scorched earth plan. I do however believe Green is as good as gone at the deadline this year unless we are firmly in a playoff spot, simply because we have to shed $$$ on both him and Mrazek (who would ideally be resigned for no more than 1.5Mil).
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
I agree that Detroit's front office really does think as you claim.

Which is why I feel that unequivocal failure is the most likely way out of this malaise.

The longer the Wings flirt with the playoff bubble, the longer they likely continue to draft complimentary players, sign veteran stopgaps, and steer the ship within the lane of Yawnsville.

Now COULD they do what Philly did this year, and win the lottery with incredible odds? Maybe. But even with adding one potentially fantastic piece, it still doesn't fix the cap mismanagement or the bad coaching or the lack of trades due to over valuing their own players.

With how much I disagree with the entire philosophy and approach of this franchise for several years, I'd rather just purge the Old Boys Club. Likely not gonna happen, but it's ironic that so much is made of 'Red Wing culture', when I think that's what needs a complete redo, at least from a management perspective.
 

SpookyTsuki

Registered User
Dec 3, 2014
15,916
671
I know he wants to make the playoffs but he shouldn’t hinder the next guy by making him deal with abdelkader and helm contracts. Hopefully he can get the young guys to good deals before he steps out of the GM role.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Ugh.

Being "mediocre" doesn't equal being "bad".
Being "bad" equals being bad.

Love that they take a pot-shot a Winnipeg on the first page. Poster child for everything the Wings SHOULD have done - is terrible, is laughed at, is still used their model for what we should do.

Because their goaltending sucks? You're telling me you wouldn't trade our entire roster for theirs?
 

Marky9er

Registered User
Jan 30, 2008
7,476
729
Because their goaltending sucks? You're telling me you wouldn't trade our entire roster for theirs?
I would trade just about everything just for Scheifele. I want to keep Mantha to play with him, though.

I was reading about how Scheifele grew up a wings fan and it just hurts that he's a jet for so many years lol.
 

waltdetroit

Registered User
Jul 20, 2010
2,649
526
I read about the ethics of tanking. For the most part, fans over 35 years old believe that tanking is unethical and not what sports are all about (i.e. You always compete to the highest level you can). There is something "noble" about this. Fans under the age of 35 have no problem with tanking. Maybe gaming has something to do with this, as fans can play GM etc. These fans also have come to know a wealth of stats (corsi etc) that the older fans did not have at the same age. The game & players have been "quantified" to a higher level so comparison/ratings have some basis. I wonder if a poll would prove this, something like
+35 tank
+35 no tank
<35 tank
<35 no tank

For my part, I go with no tank, although if you were guaranteed the #1, I definitely would think about it. For me, the draft has changed and the odds, though better for #1, don't warrant ripping the organization apart. I didn't think the drafting while Nill was here was all that good (and crappy drafting position) but I like the direction we are headed the past couple of years.
 

WingedWheel1987

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
13,324
902
GPP Michigan
The Wings are in a worse position than they were five years ago and they don't have anything to show for it.

The current philosophy doesn't give me anything to look forward to now or tomorrow.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
Drafting good players isn't enough.
You need great ones.

Every team in the NHL drafts Larkins and Manthas and Athanasious.

Where are the Doughtys and Keiths and Toews and Kanes and Kopitars and Crosbys and Malkins etc.
We don't have
We don't have
Until we do

Every team in the NHL drafts Larkins and Manthas and Athanasious. Until Larkin or Mantha or Athanasiou take a step and become players that other teams don't have.

The Doughtys and Keiths and Toews and Kanes and Kopitars and Crosbys and Malkins could be Dahlins and Cholowskis and Larkins and Manthas and Rasmussens and.. well, we're not going draft anything like Crosby or Malkin so let's just forget about that.

Counting on Svechnikov, and Rasmussen and Cholowski and Hronek seems especially foolish.
Why? Please explain your reasoning for thinking this. If Karlsson (#15) and Keith (2nd round) can become two of the best d-men in the league, why are we foolish for having hope in Cholo (#20) and Hronek(2nd round)? Rasmussen was drafted higher than Kopitar. Weak draft perhaps. Not a very popular draft pick, sure. But he's a high pick, why is it foolish to think he could be a good player? What reasoning do you have for thinking 1st round picks Mantha (currently PPG this season) and Larkin (PPG+ and over 50% on draws) have the same potential as Pulkkinen and Jurco did?

Do you think we'll never have a draft pick ever again or somehow become a perennial playoff team that starts trading away picks? Don't you see the potential if this current group of young players and prospects get bolstered by 1 or 2 additional top 10 picks (even Rasmussen-level players rather than Crosby-level) along with a bunch of additional late round picks? I think Mantha and Larkin look awesome this year, but they're not enough to carry us into the playoffs. We'll be drafting top 10. Judging our future as if we're not going to keep drafting high is not being very honest, it would be like saying Toronto had a terrible future when they were in the middle of their tank and Nylander/Marner had yet to hit the NHL and Matthews yet to be drafted.
 
Last edited:

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,698
I used to think that when interviews were conducted that this "anything can happen when you make the playoffs" was just something that they had to say. And that secretly deep down they were preparing for a rebuild...

Now I theorize this is case - what we hear is exactly what he is thinking. Usually he will not ever give his opinions properly on his own players to hide how he feels about them (not that you can really hide player valuations). But overall I think Ken Holland is hoping to make the playoffs. He does want to be competitive. He never wants to miss the playoffs, and he really does think rebuilds last a minimum of 6 years and that franchises suffer with no guarantee of getting players that pan out. Also you can lose the culture of the team, you purposely trade away even decent talent, and you end up with a prayer that you get the right draft picks. Edmonton, torornto and Buffalo are likely examples of waiting a decade for a team to be good again. He probably hates the thought of his team and city going through that, so tries to keep the team competitive while retaining most of his draft picks. the last few years he has slowly meandered towards selling at the deadline only due to the team's obvious position. But no he is not planning to rebuild with a scorched earth plan. I do however believe Green is as good as gone at the deadline this year unless we are firmly in a playoff spot, simply because we have to shed $$$ on both him and Mrazek (who would ideally be resigned for no more than 1.5Mil).

I don't doubt this for a second. Sadly, it sounds like a very, very long road to nowhere from where I am sitting. If you want a long rebuild the best thing to do is not realize when it is time to rebuild. I think the Leafs are a prime example of this. Holland never explains to the fans why his strategy is more likely to work than a full-on rebuild. All he does it tell us that traditional rebuilds aren't guaranteed to work. I am not looking for guarantees [or boxes of shit marked guaranteed]. I don't hate Holland like many around here, but I do hate is aversion to risk and his fear of the unknown. If the bird in your hand is old, sickly and about to die, the two in the bush should look really attractive to you.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
If you want a long rebuild the best thing to do is not realize when it is time to rebuild. I think the Leafs are a prime example of this. Holland never explains to the fans why his strategy is more likely to work than a full-on rebuild.
1. Leafs did not rebuild like we are. They traded TONS of picks and prospects, they had plenty of possibilities for an actual rebuild if they had played it the way Holland did instead of going for quick fixes.
2. If 10 teams tank, 7 or 8 of them seem to get stuck in the bottom or not make it to much more than the dreaded purgatory. But we're in a situation where we might get a top 3 pick even without actively tanking, just by virtue of how poor our roster is and the way the draft lottery works. And if you have a somewhat functioning team, you don't need to add talent on the level of McDavid in order to move the needle. Or talent on the level of Matthews+Nylander+Marner+Babcock. I mean if you dropped Dahlin onto this roster, we'd be pretty good right away.

The key to Holland's strategy working is that he can't overextend in an effort to keep the team competitive. Signing Daley is a perfect compromise between not trying at all and going for the playoffs. Now we see where the chips fall. We're still many years away from what can be seen as a "long rebuild".
 
  • Like
Reactions: waltdetroit

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
I read about the ethics of tanking. For the most part, fans over 35 years old believe that tanking is unethical and not what sports are all about (i.e. You always compete to the highest level you can). There is something "noble" about this. Fans under the age of 35 have no problem with tanking. Maybe gaming has something to do with this, as fans can play GM etc. These fans also have come to know a wealth of stats (corsi etc) that the older fans did not have at the same age. The game & players have been "quantified" to a higher level so comparison/ratings have some basis. I wonder if a poll would prove this, something like
+35 tank
+35 no tank
<35 tank
<35 no tank

For my part, I go with no tank, although if you were guaranteed the #1, I definitely would think about it. For me, the draft has changed and the odds, though better for #1, don't warrant ripping the organization apart. I didn't think the drafting while Nill was here was all that good (and crappy drafting position) but I like the direction we are headed the past couple of years.

It's not tanking if you accept that you need to play the kids and some of the veterans take a back seat during the process.
And sometimes, when that happens, you actually play better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BinCookin

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
We don't have
Until we do

Every team in the NHL drafts Larkins and Manthas and Athanasious. Until Larkin or Mantha or Athanasiou take a step and become players that other teams don't have.

The Doughtys and Keiths and Toews and Kanes and Kopitars and Crosbys and Malkins could be Dahlins and Cholowskis and Larkins and Manthas and Rasmussens and.. well, we're not going draft anything like Crosby or Malkin so let's just forget about that.


Why? Please explain your reasoning for thinking this. If Karlsson (#15) and Keith (2nd round) can become two of the best d-men in the league, why are we foolish for having hope in Cholo (#20) and Hronek(2nd round)? Rasmussen was drafted higher than Kopitar. Weak draft perhaps. Not a very popular draft pick, sure. But he's a high pick, why is it foolish to think he could be a good player? What reasoning do you have for thinking 1st round picks Mantha (currently PPG this season) and Larkin (PPG+ and over 50% on draws) have the same potential as Pulkkinen and Jurco did?

Do you think we'll never have a draft pick ever again or somehow become a perennial playoff team that starts trading away picks? Don't you see the potential if this current group of young players and prospects get bolstered by 1 or 2 additional top 10 picks (even Rasmussen-level players rather than Crosby-level) along with a bunch of additional late round picks? I think Mantha and Larkin look awesome this year, but they're not enough to carry us into the playoffs. We'll be drafting top 10. Judging our future as if we're not going to keep drafting high is not being very honest, it would be like saying Toronto had a terrible future when they were in the middle of their tank and Nylander/Marner had yet to hit the NHL and Matthews yet to be drafted.

Because Cholo and Hronek have done nothing to show they are elite level day.

You act like every ticket you bought in the lottery is the winning ticket.

Here's a hint for you: They aren't. They're losing tickets until they demonstrate otherwise.
It's the law of averages.

Hitting on Datsyuk and Zetterberg in late rounds, in successive years, was a modern minor miracle. And that miracle extended the Red Wings success for another decade.

Expecting Cholo or Hronek to be all-stars?
Wait and see if they're good enough to be NHL regulars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMule93

WingedWheel1987

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
13,324
902
GPP Michigan
The ship has already sailed in terms of not over extending to keep the team competitive when he gave Helm and Gator those ludicrous contracts.

We already know how this ends. a complete tear down with ownership purging the entire front office. It's how the story ends almost every time.

I just want to save us the trouble of wasting the next five seasons in order for that to happen.
 
Last edited:

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
The vast majority of the time, elite players - at least at forward - reach that high talent level very quickly once they reach the NHL. A Crosby or a McDavid doesn't putter around for 4-5 years, gradually becoming a superstar.

Which is why I think the odds of Larkin or Mantha ever becoming elite players is very low. Based on what they've done thus far, the likely projection is that they level off after a fast start this season, each score around 50 points this year, and have a ceiling that isn't much higher than that. Still wonderful pieces to have, but not a quite good enough of a 1-2 punch to build everything else around.
 

waltdetroit

Registered User
Jul 20, 2010
2,649
526
It's not tanking if you accept that you need to play the kids and some of the veterans take a back seat during the process.
And sometimes, when that happens, you actually play better.
Yes and sometimes not. Not all teams can be Toronto and I don't believe you just throw the rooks out there to sink or swim. I like playing the youngsters provided they are (1) physically up to the NHL, (2) have a decent understanding of the NHL game, (3) and play a modicum of defense. While I think the rookies need to be put into the best situation to succeed, this need not be to the point of over-ripe. The Wings appear to have changed their inclinations on their prospects and have promoted quite a few in the last 2 years. I watch plenty of GRG games (not stats) and it is pretty evident which prospects stand a good chance and which may need 1 more year (EX. for me Svetch is physically able but needs another year). For instance, IMHO both Bertuzzi & Tatar could have come up 1 year earlier and played 4th or 3rd line minutes, most likely sitting on occasion, but they both won MVP's and the Calder cup in that last year (maybe last for Bert,to bad he was injured). In their development, what is worth more - playing every game in a championship year or much fewer minutes and situations in the NHL? These are management decisions as they have a better handle on the players. As for the vets, I think that the rookies need a vet presence to teach them not only the game but other things like how to train. I think you keep the a few vets that are good examples to the rooks. Most rookies need mentoring. The Wings try to maintain a sort of balance between vets, rooks, and 2nd/3rd yr players. Again this the Wings seem to change philosophies when the PO streak ended. I see a decided difference in what the Wings do after the streak ended.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
I read about the ethics of tanking. For the most part, fans over 35 years old believe that tanking is unethical and not what sports are all about (i.e. You always compete to the highest level you can). There is something "noble" about this. Fans under the age of 35 have no problem with tanking. Maybe gaming has something to do with this, as fans can play GM etc. These fans also have come to know a wealth of stats (corsi etc) that the older fans did not have at the same age. The game & players have been "quantified" to a higher level so comparison/ratings have some basis. I wonder if a poll would prove this, something like
+35 tank
+35 no tank
p>
p>

For my part, I go with no tank, although if you were guaranteed the #1, I definitely would think about it. For me, the draft has changed and the odds, though better for #1, don't warrant ripping the organization apart. I didn't think the drafting while Nill was here was all that good (and crappy drafting position) but I like the direction we are headed the past couple of years.

I don't think stats has anything to do with it, tbh. If you really want to see an age split on an issue, look at PEDS and MLB. Older folks (I'll include myself, I'm 37) seem to have far less sympathy for athletes who used - especially if they didn't confess to it only to be nailed on it later. The PEDS issue is similar to tanking where it's an intangible quality of the person/organization where it's either win at all costs or not. In short, I think it's more a generational divide than anything, more influenced by things like the shift/failure of the economy, politics, etc. than Bill James and his cohorts.

I'm not really for tanking, either. I was for trading guys rather than re-signing them, and just recognizing that the team was past it's actual Cup window. Whether that's tanking or not I guess is up to how someone wants to define it.

1. Leafs did not rebuild like we are. They traded TONS of picks and prospects, they had plenty of possibilities for an actual rebuild if they had played it the way Holland did instead of going for quick fixes.
2. If 10 teams tank, 7 or 8 of them seem to get stuck in the bottom or not make it to much more than the dreaded purgatory. But we're in a situation where we might get a top 3 pick even without actively tanking, just by virtue of how poor our roster is and the way the draft lottery works. And if you have a somewhat functioning team, you don't need to add talent on the level of McDavid in order to move the needle. Or talent on the level of Matthews+Nylander+Marner+Babcock. I mean if you dropped Dahlin onto this roster, we'd be pretty good right away.

The key to Holland's strategy working is that he can't overextend in an effort to keep the team competitive. Signing Daley is a perfect compromise between not trying at all and going for the playoffs. Now we see where the chips fall. We're still many years away from what can be seen as a "long rebuild".

I think we're already involved in a long rebuild, and it's been made longer by keeping guys like Gator and Helm, while giving Nielsen the sort of deal we gave him. And to get back to being decent you're talking about adding who is likely the top player in next year's draft. That's a pretty big add.

I don't disagree that we didn't (and still don't) have to do a full, gut the franchise style tank to get things straightened out. But Holland has likely relegated this club to having to significantly beat the draft odds (both in the lottery and in the quality of player normally available where we will pick) to add the sort of young talent it will increasingly need.
 

waltdetroit

Registered User
Jul 20, 2010
2,649
526
I don't think stats has anything to do with it, tbh. If you really want to see an age split on an issue, look at PEDS and MLB. Older folks (I'll include myself, I'm 37) seem to have far less sympathy for athletes who used - especially if they didn't confess to it only to be nailed on it later. The PEDS issue is similar to tanking where it's an intangible quality of the person/organization where it's either win at all costs or not. In short, I think it's more a generational divide than anything, more influenced by things like the shift/failure of the economy, politics, etc. than Bill James and his cohorts.

I'm not really for tanking, either. I was for trading guys rather than re-signing them, and just recognizing that the team was past it's actual Cup window. Whether that's tanking or not I guess is up to how someone wants to define it.

Interesting point, thanks. Being 66 yrs old I lump the gaming & stats into 1 pot. I definitely agree on MLB & PEDS.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Yes and sometimes not. Not all teams can be Toronto and I don't believe you just throw the rooks out there to sink or swim. I like playing the youngsters provided they are (1) physically up to the NHL, (2) have a decent understanding of the NHL game, (3) and play a modicum of defense. While I think the rookies need to be put into the best situation to succeed, this need not be to the point of over-ripe. The Wings appear to have changed their inclinations on their prospects and have promoted quite a few in the last 2 years. I watch plenty of GRG games (not stats) and it is pretty evident which prospects stand a good chance and which may need 1 more year (EX. for me Svetch is physically able but needs another year). For instance, IMHO both Bertuzzi & Tatar could have come up 1 year earlier and played 4th or 3rd line minutes, most likely sitting on occasion, but they both won MVP's and the Calder cup in that last year (maybe last for Bert,to bad he was injured). In their development, what is worth more - playing every game in a championship year or much fewer minutes and situations in the NHL? These are management decisions as they have a better handle on the players. As for the vets, I think that the rookies need a vet presence to teach them not only the game but other things like how to train. I think you keep the a few vets that are good examples to the rooks. Most rookies need mentoring. The Wings try to maintain a sort of balance between vets, rooks, and 2nd/3rd yr players. Again this the Wings seem to change philosophies when the PO streak ended. I see a decided difference in what the Wings do after the streak ended.

I think using Larkin right out of college was a sign the Wings were changing their philosophy.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
I don't think stats has anything to do with it, tbh. If you really want to see an age split on an issue, look at PEDS and MLB. Older folks (I'll include myself, I'm 37) seem to have far less sympathy for athletes who used - especially if they didn't confess to it only to be nailed on it later. The PEDS issue is similar to tanking where it's an intangible quality of the person/organization where it's either win at all costs or not. In short, I think it's more a generational divide than anything, more influenced by things like the shift/failure of the economy, politics, etc. than Bill James and his cohorts.

I'm not really for tanking, either. I was for trading guys rather than re-signing them, and just recognizing that the team was past it's actual Cup window. Whether that's tanking or not I guess is up to how someone wants to define it.



I think we're already involved in a long rebuild, and it's been made longer by keeping guys like Gator and Helm, while giving Nielsen the sort of deal we gave him. And to get back to being decent you're talking about adding who is likely the top player in next year's draft. That's a pretty big add.

I don't disagree that we didn't (and still don't) have to do a full, gut the franchise style tank to get things straightened out. But Holland has likely relegated this club to having to significantly beat the draft odds (both in the lottery and in the quality of player normally available where we will pick) to add the sort of young talent it will increasingly need.

The signings of Nielsen and Vanek and Ott and Daley are the most recent examples of a GM that doesn't seem to understand what this team needs.
I was glad to at least get draft picks for Vanek and Ott. But I'd have preferred those spots went to Jurco and Pulkkinen.

Even this year, I look at our lineup and don't see what Nielsen and Daley really do.
Over the course of the season, maybe they help us pick up 4-5 extra points.
In the grand scheme of things, is that better or worse for the franchise?

If we lose Frk on waivers when AA returns, you can blame the Nielsen signing for that. Maybe that means nothing.
But at this stage, I want to see the kids on the team.

I'm perfectly content running Zetterberg-Larkn-Sheahan-Glendening 1-2-3-4.
And on defense, Daley means Saarijarvi is in Toledo instead of GR
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Ezekial

Cheap Pizza, Bad Hockey
Sponsor
Nov 22, 2015
22,395
14,896
Chicago
Picking up vets on 1 year deals is exactly what rebuilding teams do, Vanek and Ott are nothing like the Nielsen signing.

Dealing Jurco and signing Vanek was a 2 third round pick swing rather than just keeping Jurco. Who is currently an ahler.

Pulky well, he's just not an NHL caliber player imo. But you know this already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

waltdetroit

Registered User
Jul 20, 2010
2,649
526
And on defense said:
To be honest, without Daley, Villi would still have been the 7th D. In fact Patrick McCarron, who was also sent to the Walleyes had a better camp. I think Villi would still have been sent down to get valuable time on PP's. (IMO)
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
The signings of Nielsen and Vanek and Ott and Daley are the most recent examples of a GM that doesn't seem to understand what this team needs.
I was glad to at least get draft picks for Vanek and Ott. But I'd have preferred those spots went to Jurco and Pulkkinen.

Even this year, I look at our lineup and don't see what Nielsen and Daley really do.
Over the course of the season, maybe they help us pick up 4-5 extra points.
In the grand scheme of things, is that better or worse for the franchise?

If we lose Frk on waivers when AA returns, you can blame the Nielsen signing for that. Maybe that means nothing.
But at this stage, I want to see the kids on the team.

I'm perfectly content running Zetterberg-Larkn-Sheahan-Glendening 1-2-3-4.
And on defense, Daley means Saarijarvi is in Toledo instead of GR

I'm with Ezekial in not minding the Vanek/Ott deals. They were cheap and movable, and were moved for picks. Which is what we've been needing to do. And I don't mind us moving Jurco as a result because at least it was a move, a decision was made on the guy rather than just sitting on him, playing him five minutes a night, and hoping he'll catch on at some point. The only deal of that group that I really don't like is Nielsen's. I don't like Daley's, but I can live with it. Nielsen's is just a bad deal for Holland to hitched us to.

I didn't like the Daley signing because I thought XO, Jensen, and Russo played well enough to earn top6 spots on our blueline this year. And, like you said, I'm not sure how much Daley really moves the needle in place of any of them. So why sign him? Well, it tells me the Wings don't think the guys in the system are quality NHLers and don't mind burying them.

Which wouldn't be an unwarranted opinion. I mean, these guys are all in their mid-20s. But if that's how they are viewed then do what was done with Jurco and move at least one or two of them and get some roster wiggle room. Instead, it's just hoarding all of the things and now, yeah, Saarijarvi is in Toledo. Anyone can sit in the pressbox as the #7 or play 10 minutes as an emergency fill-in. And if they are better than that, then we shouldn't have signed Daley. It's Holland wanting all of the things.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->