GDT: Winnipeg Jets @ Detroit Red Wings - 7:30 - FSD

[Frk It]

Ok... that all makes sense. I like arguing against you a hell of a lot more, Frk It.

I was saying that, using history as a barometer, the Wings got lambasted for continuing to take small, soft Euro wingers, going skill over size to a fault. I agree that having them shouldn't deter you, but I also think that at some point, you have to kind of balance the boat. Too small and skilled, you get beat up. Too big and unskilled, you get zipped around. Size shouldn't be a determining factor, but if you have a bunch of smaller, weaker on their skates wingers... at some point you will need that thumper to continue to give them room. The reason we got hammered out of the playoffs in consecutive years by Boston and Tampa is that none of our more skilled guys have been able to make hay once other teams start taking the body to them and killing their open ice. They need something that can keep the ice open for a guy like Tatar to take shots and make moves. Like when Abby pulled the piano and cleared the lane for Datsyuk in our playoff win against the Bruins.

And I understand the "I want the most skilled player, no matter what" talking point. I agree. I would rather the more skilled player too. The thing is, I do not think that Rasmussen is unskilled. I do not think that he's such a plodding loser compared to Vilardi or Necas. And it really just strikes me that outside of Razzy, how many of the Wings future top 6 really could make their own room?

Mantha can.
Larkin is still too small. He can speed around, but teams will eventually plan for him.
AA can speed around, but teams will eventually plan for him.
Tatar and Nyquist, unless something changes, clearly don't handle pressure well.
Who knows what Svech and friends at GR are capable of.

I can understand wanting another guy than Rasmussen but I just think your expectations are wildly out of whack if you expect a PPG player with a #9OA pick. They have the ability to do so, but it is still a wild success if they do. The much higher likelihood is that they're exactly what I said. 2008 Dan Cleary who pots 50p while playing two way hockey.

Yeah, well what we need and what we are most likely to get with where we draft are two separate issues... I mean, if anything, that just fuels the tank argument.

As I said in the prospect thread, hoping Rasmussen can turn out like Larkin, very effective pivots even if they aren't danglers or highlight reel guys. I think at worst, those two will be a rock solid 2-3 center combo, where Rasmussen can be a match-up nightmare like J Staal was on those Penguins teams we played.

I think as TZE has said, the biggest reason they didn't go for some of those puck possession guys last year was the skepticism they don't project as center. I do get that. Would have liked Rob Thomas, but I think some of those others may genuinely end up as wingers. And that was a weaker draft. So while Rasmussen was not my guy, I can somewhat see the thought process.

Really moving forward though, I see no reason for not swinging for the fences. If you want to defy the odds, you see that moreso with the guys who have puck skills and are puck possession guys. I mean if you look at the top 25 scorers in the NHL, that is primarily who you are looking at.

 

[lomekian]

I think the other argument the organisation had for Rasmussen is in recent years we've often been killed by teams using big centers against us. Staal & Bjugstad have given us fits. The only size we've had down the center is Sheahan who neither played big or had an offensive mindset despite actually having a decent shot and ok passing skills. Rasmussen has proven he can be a goalscorer, and when he grows into his body is going to not only be hard to shift, but also will be hard to not be shifted by.

Not the most exciting pick, but if it remotely pans out, it will fill a need we've had for a LONG time. And 6 ft 6 centers who score are not ten a penny.

That said, I wouldn't have taken him ahead of any of the guys who went before him, except perhaps Makar who has massive upside but a lot of question marks.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

8-10 picks

Sergachev, Werenski, Nylander, Ehlers, Ristolainen, Horvat, Trouba, Couturier, Hamilton, Granlund, Couture.....most of those guys would make a big difference to this team

not to mention 10-15
McAvoy, Bean, Larkin, Domi, Morrissey, Wennberg, Forsberg, Ceci, Fowler, Schwartz, Ellis, Myers. Karlsson, Mcdonagh, Shattenkirk.

Ok in the last decade that is only 1, maybe 2 franchise players so far (others that might become that), but out of 80 possibles, 25 would definitely be top line players for us, and a few more that may yet become that. So if you draft well, you can absolutely have a major impact on a franchise picking 8-15.

The eleven players you mentioned that were picked 8-10 overall were drafted by many different teams? Looks like 9-10 different teams over a span of roughly a decade. Detroit has one first round pick that will be in that range.

Detroit is completely devoid of high end talent, so they would need to draft 2-3 of those players in a 4-5 year period for their new core.

You give the Wings 4-5 top ten picks a year for 5-6 years in a row, i can see that happening.

What's more likely is the Wings draft one of those players every 4-5 years and create a vicious cycle of mediocrity.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

The eleven players you mentioned that were picked 8-10 overall were drafted by many different teams? Looks like 9-10 different teams over a span of roughly a decade. Detroit has one first round pick that will be in that range.

Detroit is completely devoid of high end talent, so they would need to draft 2-3 of those players in a 4-5 year period for their new core.

You give the Wings 4-5 top ten picks a year for 5-6 years in a row, i can see that happening.

What's more likely is the Wings draft one of those players every 4-5 years and create a vicious cycle of mediocrity.

The NHL has created a vicious cycle of mediocrity. The cap, the lottery, RFA set up... it's all designed to increase parity and parity leads to mediocrity. It brings all teams to the mean. Whereas the 90s you had five teams who were the creme de la creme and 25 who were dead before the year even started, the post lockout years have made it so that all teams except those deciding to be abjectly terrible are kind of in the hunt.

 

[Bench]

the post lockout years have made it so that all teams except those deciding to be abjectly terrible are kind of in the hunt.

Hunt for the playoffs. There's still a top tier of teams in the post season.

 

[Winger98]

I don't disagree. On balance our drafting is fine (certainly up front), and outside the 1st round has been v good at exceeding average point expectations. But it is frustrating that while most are not as good on a pick by pick basis, 2/3 of the NHL have picked real difference makers with picks that were available to us. I'm less saying its a massive organisational failure, but more that for a team so good at turning late picks into good roster players, we have been comparatively bad at picking up genuine first line-ers among the top 2 rounds. Sadly 3 third liners are not the same value as a first liner, regardless of what the NHL games tell us.

My main point is, that had we been like 2/3 of the NHL and been a bit worse at consistently drafting roster players in rounds late 1 & 2, and a bit better at picking up 1st line forwards or top 3 d-men in those positions, the rebuild on the fly might have been the endless streak remaining competitive wet dream of Ken Holland's that so many on here say was inevitably impossible.

And of course, if you could swap those records for picks 20-60 and keep our ability in rounds 4,5,6 & 7, we'd actually have not dropped out of the top 10 in the NHL...

It's frustrating, but I have to imagine the rest of the NHL was feeling the same way when we pulled Z and D out of the last few rounds of the draft, and then turned around and pulled Franzen from the third round. Hoping to pull better players later in the draft, the best thing Holland could have done was accumulate more picks. The path he took was almost the worst he could have charted if he was serious about trying to rebuild while remaining at all competitive.

Even if there is a worry the wings have become too conservative in their drafting (less focus on skill, more on other things), having extra picks can be a way to combat that, essentially giving us extra shots to go big on a pick, while still having other picks to be safe with. I don't want to make it out as if it's all luck, but teams are drafting 18/19 year olds and trying to figure out what they'll be 5 years down the road. Those are some long odds for any team.

 

[jkutswings]

Hunt for the playoffs. There's still a top tier of teams in the post season.

Which is what drives me crazy about the current approach. Yes, anybody can MAKE the playoffs, but 9 times out of 10, the wheat is separated from the chaff pretty quickly. And building a roster with the concept of, 'Hey, once in a blue moon, we'll be more than a speed bump for championship contenders' seems like a maddeningly low bar to set.

 

[lomekian]

The eleven players you mentioned that were picked 8-10 overall were drafted by many different teams? Looks like 9-10 different teams over a span of roughly a decade. Detroit has one first round pick that will be in that range.

Detroit is completely devoid of high end talent, so they would need to draft 2-3 of those players in a 4-5 year period for their new core.

You give the Wings 4-5 top ten picks a year for 5-6 years in a row, i can see that happening.

What's more likely is the Wings draft one of those players every 4-5 years and create a vicious cycle of mediocrity.

Nice ignoring the entire second half of my post that undermines your position. If you are going to make a blanket statement, you can't cherry pick your response. Or is your assertion that no team that picked between 11 & 15 would ever have picked a the same player with a higher pick?

Also, What has specifically Detroit's past draft position got to do with anything? You said

"Teams with no elite talent at any position don't get anywhere with 8-10 overall picks. All it does is create a vicious cycle of purgatory that only ends when ownership purges the organization from top to bottom and brings in new management to oversee a traditional rebuild."

I was just proving that although there are decent odds you might miss, there is still a decent chance (over 30% in the examples given) of picking a top 3 forward or top pairing d-main with the picks 8-15 (and given the breakdown, the % reaches above 40% in picks 8-10 over the last decade). Which is hardly not getting anywhere.

This thread has over the last couple of days been the rare pleasure of a genuine debate free of hysteria concerning the different routes available to management. Don't you get bored of posting about how everything is awful, the management are all idiots and we need to get top 5 picks for multiple years or we may as well give up? As many people have said in this thread, there are multitude of different possibilities between tanking for top 5 picks for multiple years or finishing 17th every year and not getting any better. We are already between those two places.

 

[lomekian]

It's frustrating, but I have to imagine the rest of the NHL was feeling the same way when we pulled Z and D out of the last few rounds of the draft, and then turned around and pulled Franzen from the third round. Hoping to pull better players later in the draft, the best thing Holland could have done was accumulate more picks. The path he took was almost the worst he could have charted if he was serious about trying to rebuild while remaining at all competitive.

Even if there is a worry the wings have become too conservative in their drafting (less focus on skill, more on other things), having extra picks can be a way to combat that, essentially giving us extra shots to go big on a pick, while still having other picks to be safe with. I don't want to make it out as if it's all luck, but teams are drafting 18/19 year olds and trying to figure out what they'll be 5 years down the road. Those are some long odds for any team.

Sure. And that's why I agree that 2012-2016 was where Kenny made his most mistakes. He gave up too much for too little when he traded, and let too many UFAs walk in the hope they would make the playoff difference, when he could have traded them for a similarly skilled asset with remaining contract years. I understood the Legwand trade but wouldn't have made it, even before his game dropped off a cliff. The Cole trade made more sense, but ultimately was a mistake. Though I thought we should have persevered more with him once fit, I never much liked the Weiss signing, and the KFQ trade was one of the few things this board would reach consensus on.

Once it was becoming clear that Kindl & Smith were not going to reach the aspirations we had for them, he should have been more proactive looking at other avenues. He was certainly guilty of putting too many eggs in the Suter basket, though, despite being better than us the last couple of years, the Wild have basically achieved nothing since then.

The failure to re-build on the fly, for me, is not a fundamental strategic flaw inevitable to fail as some badge it as, but a tricky endeavour defeated by some bad luck, some bad decisions and Ryan Suter's wife ;-)

As I said, on balance the Wings drafting is good, and in lower rounds is excellent - its just frustrating that the wings underachieved in the picks 20-50 at just the time when the franchise's long term success meant they couldn't afford to. Certainly not a cause for outrage, but a disappointment, when just by matching 2/3 of the rest of the NHL in those rounds, the on the fly rebuild could have worked and we'd be confident of both breaking the streak record AND going on playoff runs - which would have been a magnificent achievement

 

[lomekian]

Which is what drives me crazy about the current approach. Yes, anybody can MAKE the playoffs, but 9 times out of 10, the wheat is separated from the chaff pretty quickly. And building a roster with the concept of, 'Hey, once in a blue moon, we'll be more than a speed bump for championship contenders' seems like a maddeningly low bar to set.

Of course, but its the bar defined by the current position, as is the current approach. Management and ownership agree a deliberate tank can destroy an organisations culture, or at least take a long time to recover from. History has shown you can tank to victory, but you have to be BAD for 2-5 seasons in a row, be lucky with the lottery AND lucky with draft years. If you are and get good staff, you can be Pittsburgh or Chicago or maybe future TML if they get a defence. If you aren't you can be Edmonton, Arizona or Buffalo. And sometimes even if you are bad and lucky in the right ways.

The evidence suggests that with good, proactive management, both the tank route or the sans tank rebuild route can be successful. The problem the wings have is that KH and colleagues made a handful of bad decisions at the wrong time, which then made it hard to be subsequently proactive, because there aren't many trade pieces to play with.

While I'll be jealous if and when Arizona or Buffalo gets Dahlin, they've both been propping up the standings and getting amazing picks for a while now, and both are STILL awful. Even Edmonton could be worse than us despite more #1 picks in the last 8 years than the wings have had since the draft began. (and as many top 10s as the wings have had in my lifetime - and the grey hairs are making themselves at home).

The key is always good management. Top 3 picks help, but plenty of top 3 picks never get a sniff of the Stanley Cup. Does Detroit have good enough management? We don't know because its been so long since we rebuilt that everybody from then has retired, moved upstairs or died.

 

[Winger98]

Once it was becoming clear that Kindl & Smith were not going to reach the aspirations we had for them, he should have been more proactive looking at other avenues. He was certainly guilty of putting too many eggs in the Suter basket, though, despite being better than us the last couple of years, the Wild have basically achieved nothing since then.

The failure to re-build on the fly, for me, is not a fundamental strategic flaw inevitable to fail as some badge it as, but a tricky endeavour defeated by some bad luck, some bad decisions and Ryan Suter's wife ;-)

I've wondered if Suter has any regrets about that decision. Yeah, the Wings haven't exactly been world beaters, but I have more confidence in them putting a Cup in Suter's hands than I do the Wild.

 

[lomekian]

I've wondered if Suter has any regrets about that decision. Yeah, the Wings haven't exactly been world beaters, but I have more confidence in them putting a Cup in Suter's hands than I do the Wild.

Particularly while Pav was still around. That year we probably should have beaten TBL, I think he would have made a massive difference.

 

[Winger98]

Particularly while Pav was still around. That year we probably should have beaten TBL, I think he would have made a massive difference.

I wouldn't have been surprised if he could have pushed us past Chicago in 12/13. And having his salary on the books might have meant we couldn't have went out and signed Sammy, Tootoo, and Coliacavo. Suter would have changed a lot about this club over the past five years.

 

[Dotter]

Cool, and they can't seem to entice all those people who already paid money to actually go to the games.

It isn't a good look and doesn't at all contradict the points that I made.

I mean, from a business standpoint if they already paid = profit.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I mean, from a business standpoint if they already paid = profit.

You are aware that ticket sales are not the only way the team makes profit, right?

And do you think things are going to get better now that the GM allowed the team to get bad at this point in time? How many more games do you anticipate the team selling out?

 

[Dotter]

You are aware that ticket sales are not the only way the team makes profit, right?

And do you think things are going to get better now that the GM allowed the team to get bad at this point in time? How many more games do you anticipate the team selling out?

Point is they aren't giving away cars. There should be a slump in sales, sure. But if KH hits on a few good prospects, that'll help turn it around. Right now Larkin, Mantha and AA are exciting and probably help contribute to the attendance they do have.

Watching tomorrows Blues vs Wings ticket sales the past few days and I can see the tickets are dwindling away. Not many good $325+ tickets left. People are buying them because the ones I specifically remember being available are gone. And Blues vs Wings aren't usually exciting in recent history.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I mean, from a business standpoint if they already paid = profit.

From a business standpoint if someone pays for a ticket that's revenue, not profit.

And if the team continues to be craptacular eventually companies will stop spending money on tickets to games that no one uses.

 

[Dotter]

From a business standpoint if someone pays for a ticket that's revenue, not profit.

And if the team continues to be craptacular eventually companies will stop spending money on tickets to games that no one uses.

If in your world there's no net profit, sure. Apparently Ilitch's have no problem with Ken Holland paying his players enough to piss you off. Without digging into the books and being all literal like an IRS agent seeking a pat on the back from his prick of a boss, who the f*** really knows. But one think we can't debate is Chris is probably happier tickets are, in fact, selling (generating revenue) despite *if* less attendance vs no ticket sales (revenue) and ultimately no attendance; folks sitting in the bar sipping their sorrows away.

I have not been to the LCA yet (but I will go!). So I can't pretend to know if the attendance is there like folks claim are in the restaurant or whatever eating/drinking and touring the arena. And I don't care. The fact is LCA is selling tickets... as I originally said back when we started this merry-go-round debate 2 months ago. Lol

Edit:
the "2 months ago" comment was sarcasm, Mr. Literal. Wanted to clear that up before you make that your new argument as your next "Haaaaa! Gotcha!" moment. Lol

 

[lomekian]

I wouldn't have been surprised if he could have pushed us past Chicago in 12/13. And having his salary on the books might have meant we couldn't have went out and signed Sammy, Tootoo, and Coliacavo. Suter would have changed a lot about this club over the past five years.

True. Hadn't thought of that. Certainly after we missed Suter, KH had his worst run of decision making over the following 2-3 years.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Point is they aren't giving away cars. There should be a slump in sales, sure. But if KH hits on a few good prospects, that'll help turn it around. Right now Larkin, Mantha and AA are exciting and probably help contribute to the attendance they do have.

Watching tomorrows Blues vs Wings ticket sales the past few days and I can see the tickets are dwindling away. Not many good $325+ tickets left. People are buying them because the ones I specifically remember being available are gone. And Blues vs Wings aren't usually exciting in recent history.

I mean, you could have had guys like Larkin and Mantha and even better players if you had committed to a rebuild (again, not just a tank) ealier, which was my point. Right now the team has a horrible defense and no real hot ticket player that you just have to pay money to see. Larkin, Mantha, and AA are not at that level yet.

And cool, the Wings might be close to capacity on a Saturday against a former rival. That doesn't mean much of anything.

 

[jkutswings]

If in your world there's no net profit, sure. Apparently Ilitch's have no problem with Ken Holland paying his players enough to piss you off. Without digging into the books and being all literal like an IRS agent seeking a pat on the back from his prick of a boss, who the **** really knows. But one think we can't debate is Chris is probably happier tickets are, in fact, selling (generating revenue) despite *if* less attendance vs no ticket sales (revenue) and ultimately no attendance; folks sitting in the bar sipping their sorrows away.

I have not been to the LCA yet (but I will go!). So I can't pretend to know if the attendance is there like folks claim are in the restaurant or whatever eating/drinking and touring the arena. And I don't care. The fact is LCA is selling tickets... as I originally said back when we started this merry-go-round debate 2 months ago. Lol

Edit:
the "2 months ago" comment was sarcasm, Mr. Literal. Wanted to clear that up before you make that your new argument as your next "Haaaaa! Gotcha!" moment. Lol

If fewer and fewer people are actually attending the games they bought tickets to, the additional (significant) revenue for parking, concessions, and merchandise all starts to dry up.

And if attendance dwindles, television ratings likely also decline, which leads to less revenue from the next TV contract. And so on.

So, if, in addition to the increasingly negative perception of the team, both by many fans and now the media, butts in seats are already diminishing - even though the first few months of tickets are all sold - that's a decidedly BAD indicator for the future financial picture of the franchise.

Essentially, the longer the roster is in purgatory, the less money they'll make, and, if it continues, eventually, heads will roll. Forgive me if I'd prefer a more proactive approach, rather than basking in a vault of money for 1-2 years, then driving the bulk of the fanbase to apathy (with the decline in revenue to match) for an extended period of time.

Nowhere in what I just said does it mandate a tank. But this degree of conservatism is already showing indications of turning people off to the product.

 

[Dotter]

Sounds like a Trump doomsday speech taken straight from "propaganda for dummies" guide on chapter 1 page #3 for adolescence.

 

[Dotter]

ealier, which was my point. Right now the team has a horrible defense and no real hot ticket player that you just have to pay money to see. Larkin, Mantha, and AA are not at that level yet.

Went full circle and I don't want to keep repeating myself. Why rip a dying man's heart out? Especially when that man brought the team back from the "Dead Things" era and undoubtedly loved the team more than any of could ever fathom.

But I guess our personal feelings on how a billionaire should spend their $$ to preserve a dying legacy for a dying husband and father should always proceed that... solely for our viewing pleasure a few years earlier. Ya know... just your typical everyday 1st world problems in an instant gratification culture from inconsiderate group of personalities our grandfathers shed blood to defend, therefore we are owed that as North American human beings! - We demand our entertainment! Around and around we go.