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

TheMule93

On a mule rides the swindler
May 26, 2015
12,466
6,512
Ontario
I like the draft lottery. We're actually going to get a shot at Dahlin despite Arizona and buffablow being so much worse
 

Flowah

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
10,249
547
what sucks is that I would trust him to do well with some high picks and do a rebuild well. It's hard to screw a top5 pick up too horrily, and I have faith in our ability to continue to get useful players lower in the draft.



Yeah, the draft lottery is a dumb idea.



And it seems trades are becoming less and less of a feature of the NHL, at least where significant pieces are moved. That said, most teams that had sustained success didn't build with several core pieces through trades. We added Shanny, and that was pretty much it. The Wings patched holes here and there with UFA/trades, but the bulk of the success was always on guys brought up through the system.

In the past they had a bit of an advantage in drafting with a better setup in Europe than other teams had, but that field has leveled a bit.
Exactly where I'm at. We find good players in the draft. I think that's pretty much agreed upon. Finding useful NHL level players, even top stuff is not easy. It's less than a coinflip as soon as you get out of the 2nd round to even find an NHL regular, much less a good one. And that's being very generous with the definition of a "regular." Joakim Andersson would be included for example, and Corey Emmerton and Landon Ferraro.

But the Wings have done it. We get upset sometimes but Nyquist, Tatar, Athanasiou, all out of the 1st round are pretty damn good players relative to the probabilities. Jensen, XO, even E are good. Turning literally the last player in the draft into an actual NHL caliber player is a sign of good drafting and development. I trust that part mostly.

But we've obviously not picked up anyone elite in ages. I don't blame Holland for not magically defying the odds and finding a 1C and 1D in the 5th round. I don't consider that realistic, because I'm a slave to reality, practicality, and probability. Those are the only things that make sense to me.

I do blame Holland for not maximizing his probability of drafting higher, in exchange for first round exits. Not worth it to me.

As for the lottery, I don't think it's properly weighted, but I think it's fine and still doesn't mean you shouldn't tank. Your odds are still significantly better for being last. Guaranteed a top4 pick versus a top 10 is a big difference. The talent drop off, historically, in the top2-3 versus everyone else is enormous. It's looks like a damn cliff if you plot the data.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,684
The talent drop off, historically, in the top2-3 versus everyone else is enormous. It's looks like a damn cliff if you plot the data.

Well, right... but that's also why the NHL made it so even if you finish dead last you are more likely to draft 4th than in the top 3 (even if only by a little).
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
Like Winger just said above, championship teams are built on elite talent. And statistically, the most likely place to find elite talent is at the very top of the draft.
Just because we had pretty much maximum bad luck in last year's draft doesn't take away from our actual position in the standings. It's highly unlikely we keep finishing bottom 5 and always lose 3-4 positions due to lottery and expansion teams, nor will every draft be as (supposedly) thin on elite talent as the '17 draft was. And if we're truly screwing up our draft picks (Cholowski, Rasmussen etc), we'll only get worse and increase our chances of having the best odds in the lottery. Just have a little bit of patience. We're literally in year 2 outside the playoffs. If Holland (or whoever replaces him) fails to build a decent team now that we're starting to add top 10 picks (along with increased number of later picks) that's where my patience will run out. I just can't blame Holland & Co. for getting extremely unlucky in their first draft lottery ever or because they've not done that miracle feat of once again drafting an elite core out of the later rounds. I have to give them the same chance that every other management team in the NHL has had; to build a winner with the help of top 10 draft picks.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Just like re-building on the fly....

Jim Nill / KH etc make better picks in 05-12 and Ken Holland right now looks like a genius.

The problem is that where they are picking it's less about just making better picks and more about just getting stupidly lucky. And after already getting stupidly lucky twice with Z and D, I'm not sure it's a well we should feel comfortable going back to for awhile. Compare it to poker, you might win going all-in on a pair of deuces, but you probably won't because the odds are tremendously against you.

As for the lottery, I don't think it's properly weighted, but I think it's fine and still doesn't mean you shouldn't tank. Your odds are still significantly better for being last. Guaranteed a top4 pick versus a top 10 is a big difference. The talent drop off, historically, in the top2-3 versus everyone else is enormous. It's looks like a damn cliff if you plot the data.

I just don't see a need for it. A lot of this came up because Edmonton was perennially lousy despite their top picks, as if being perennially lousy isn't punishment enough. That, and I think the NHL is just seeking cheap thrills to rope fans in. I'd have more sympathy for it if it restricted the lotto a bit, like maybe limiting to the five worst teams, but I don't have much interest in seeing bad teams punished more on draft day just because of blind chance.

Just because we had pretty much maximum bad luck in last year's draft doesn't take away from our actual position in the standings. It's highly unlikely we keep finishing bottom 5 and always lose 3-4 positions due to lottery and expansion teams, nor will every draft be as (supposedly) thin on elite talent as the '17 draft was. And if we're truly screwing up our draft picks (Cholowski, Rasmussen etc), we'll only get worse and increase our chances of having the best odds in the lottery. Just have a little bit of patience. We're literally in year 2 outside the playoffs. If Holland (or whoever replaces him) fails to build a decent team now that we're starting to add top 10 picks (along with increased number of later picks) that's where my patience will run out. I just can't blame Holland & Co. for getting extremely unlucky in their first draft lottery ever or because they've not done that miracle feat of once again drafting an elite core out of the later rounds. I have to give them the same chance that every other management team in the NHL has had; to build a winner with the help of top 10 draft picks.

It feels like this is at least a partial response to me, so I'm going to chime in here. My issue with Holland is less to do with who drafts right now than how he has built this Wings team. I think he's set the Wings up to fall into that ugly purgatory of drafting in the teens for awhile, outside of draft lottery help moving us up the board, and it's going to stall any rebuild efforts for awhile.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,684
My issue with Holland is less to do with who drafts right now than how he has built this Wings team. I think he's set the Wings up to fall into that ugly purgatory of drafting in the teens for awhile, outside of draft lottery help moving us up the board, and it's going to stall any rebuild efforts for awhile.

Basically, that's been my fear as well.

Just like re-building on the fly....

Jim Nill / KH etc make better picks in 05-12 and Ken Holland right now looks like a genius.

So... if only the incredibly low % strategy they chose to go with yielded different results?

Re-building on the fly is/was the epitome of wishful thinking. Hey, let's get [really] good again without being bad. It mean, it does sound nice. But the odds are stacked against you to an overwhelming extent.
 
Last edited:

Flowah

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
10,249
547
I just don't see a need for it. A lot of this came up because Edmonton was perennially lousy despite their top picks, as if being perennially lousy isn't punishment enough. That, and I think the NHL is just seeking cheap thrills to rope fans in. I'd have more sympathy for it if it restricted the lotto a bit, like maybe limiting to the five worst teams, but I don't have much interest in seeing bad teams punished more on draft day just because of blind chance.
It goes to whether you think any significant number of teams purposefully tank or not. It would be embarrassing for the league if like 3-5 teams just started obviously throwing games for the draft which had the next Crosby. I get that. They think by lessening the odds they make it less attractive. They're right about that.

On the other hand, to me personally it's still more attractive than spending 10 years in hockey purgatory. Hockey is a strong link sport where having the better player matters more than not having the worst player as in a weak link sport. And since the talent drop off is so steep that creates the perfect conditions for tanking being too attractive unless the process is either random or close to random.

Also I personally don't recall any instances of blatant tanking in at least the past 7 years. I think too many people confuse rebuilding with tanking because they look basically identical. What do you do when you tank? Well players aren't going to tank so the GM needs to make trades. You can't get good picks by trading bad players so you trade the good players who aren't getting it done on your team. Typically they're older, known quantities that a competing team wants and will pay some future picks to get. This makes your team worse at that moment.

That's exactly what rebuilding is. The only real way to rebuild is through the draft. It's pretty much impossible to build a solid team through trading. Very few great players make it to UFA and very few are traded without another great player coming back the other way. And if you had great players you'd probably not be looking to rebuild anyway. So you amass picks. And you amass picks by trading your good players away.

So I can see why the NHL would want to make it less attractive, but I'm not sure it's entirely necessary or even if it has much effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
All this bellyaching about the lottery is screwy.
We've got a salary cap creating parity on one end.
So now people are complaining about the lottery because it doesn't guarantee them a certain spot if they suck?

How about this?
Draft the right guys. Trade for the right guys. Sign the right guys to the right contract.

Personally, with a salary cap, i'd like to see a 31-team draft lottery -- heavily weighted of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lomekian

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,684
Also I personally don't recall any instances of blatant tanking in at least the past 7 years. I think too many people confuse rebuilding with tanking because they look basically identical. What do you do when you tank? Well players aren't going to tank so the GM needs to make trades. You can't get good picks by trading bad players so you trade the good players who aren't getting it done on your team. Typically they're older, known quantities that a competing team wants and will pay some future picks to get. This makes your team worse at that moment.

Sabres 100% tanked. They literally traded any goalie that won too much. GMTM was gunning for McDavid to the point where he said he was disappointed for the fans when they missed on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oddbob and Winger98

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,684
All this bellyaching about the lottery is screwy.
We've got a salary cap creating parity on one end.
So now people are complaining about the lottery because it doesn't guarantee them a certain spot if they suck?

How about this?
Draft the right guys. Trade for the right guys. Sign the right guys to the right contract.

Personally, with a salary cap, i'd like to see a 31-team draft lottery -- heavily weighted of course.

The reality is most teams can't, and majority rules.

You will have some teams sit at the bottom forever with a system like this. Which I don't necessarily oppose, but I'm not the commissioner who is employed by the owners who will be rioting over this.

I mean you are seeing teams struggle for extended periods while getting high picks. Now you are just going to tell them to do better while making their odds worse? The easiest way to draft better is to draft higher. The NHL has an undeniably strong correlation between draft position and productivity. You can beat the odds in an individual draft class without a high pick. To do it multiple times over a 4-5 year period (which is what is required to build a contender) is not really a realistic ask for 95% of teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Basically, that's been my fear as well.



So... if only the incredibly low % strategy they chose to go with yielded different results?

Re-building on the fly is/was the epitome of wishful thinking. Hey, let's get [really] good again without being bad. It mean, it does sound nice. But the odds are stacked against you to an overwhelming extent.

I mean, to be a little bit fair... ALL strategies to having a winning team are low percentage strategies. I mean, it isn't easy to win. There are 31 teams. 30 of them are going out of their way to **** up your path to success.

I mean, even the Pens came down to a single digit % of puling Sidney Crosby in that draft (because that was less weighted IIRC). Colorado hit on Landeskog, MacK, Rantanen, and a couple other players... and they had one of the worst seasons in league history last year.

My last thought on it is... If I have, say a 16-20% chance of landing a guy like Rasmus Dahlin, but I have to be kick my nuts bad to get enough ping pong balls to have it happen... I'd rather take my 5-8% chance of doing so and keep a team that is set up to be somewhat good at hockey. I'd rather have the pieces in place already so when if I'm lucky enough to land super mega star #1C and he can catapult me, I'm looking at a Cup contender during his ELC years, not landing him and then hoping I can back fill enough of the glue guys that all competitive teams need and/or need to jettison those pieces to pay him $10M and then get caught in that loop forever.

Kinda like Edmonton landing Taylor Hall. Have a good enough base and THEN add that guy, and you jump on success when he's a rookie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lomekian

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,684
I mean, to be a little bit fair... ALL strategies to having a winning team are low percentage strategies. I mean, it isn't easy to win. There are 31 teams. 30 of them are going out of their way to **** up your path to success.

I mean, even the Pens came down to a single digit % of puling Sidney Crosby in that draft (because that was less weighted IIRC). Colorado hit on Landeskog, MacK, Rantanen, and a couple other players... and they had one of the worst seasons in league history last year.

My last thought on it is... If I have, say a 16-20% chance of landing a guy like Rasmus Dahlin, but I have to be kick my nuts bad to get enough ping pong balls to have it happen... I'd rather take my 5-8% chance of doing so and keep a team that is set up to be somewhat good at hockey. I'd rather have the pieces in place already so when if I'm lucky enough to land super mega star #1C and he can catapult me, I'm looking at a Cup contender during his ELC years, not landing him and then hoping I can back fill enough of the glue guys that all competitive teams need and/or need to jettison those pieces to pay him $10M and then get caught in that loop forever.

Kinda like Edmonton landing Taylor Hall. Have a good enough base and THEN add that guy, and you jump on success when he's a rookie.

Regarding your first sentence/paragraph, absolutely.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I just hope people understand it is a double-edged sword. The more you dismantle the team to embrace drafting high, the more pieces you have to add back in later on. On the flip side, continuing to sign the Trevor Daley and Frans Nielsen's of the world give you a little buffer from the bottom falling out entirely. Both approaches have their issues.

I also think we take for granted how easy it would be to replace some of what we take about moving for draft picks. We have done well with drafting wingers outside of the 1st round, but it is actually very difficult to draft .5 PPG forwards outside of the 1st round, like Tatar and Nyquist are. It seems a lot of people just think we can do that again, but the reality is we haven't done that since 2009 (Tatar), to my knowledge. Even if you assume AA gets there and maintains it, he was drafted 5 years ago (2012). It's way harder than people realize.

There's a cost for every decision you make. And as I have said many times, I think re-building a team in the current landscape of the NHL is probably the hardest it has ever been.
 

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,870
6,957
Regarding your first sentence/paragraph, absolutely.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I just hope people understand it is a double-edged sword. The more you dismantle the team to embrace drafting high, the more pieces you have to add back in later on. On the flip side, continuing to sign the Trevor Daley and Frans Nielsen's of the world give you a little buffer from the bottom falling out entirely. Both approaches have their issues.

I also think we take for granted how easy it would be to replace some of what we take about moving for draft picks. We have done well with drafting wingers outside of the 1st round, but it is actually very difficult to draft .5 PPG forwards outside of the 1st round, like Tatar and Nyquist are. It seems a lot of people just think we can do that again, but the reality is we haven't done that since 2009 (Tatar), to my knowledge. Even if you assume AA gets there and maintains it, he was drafted 5 years ago (2012). It's way harder than people realize.

There's a cost for every decision you make. And as I have said many times, I think re-building a team in the current landscape of the NHL is probably the hardest it has ever been.

part of that is their drafting approach changing as well though

they went from going after guys like Tatar with their second round picks to guys like Bertuzzi,Nastasiuk,Smith etc

the type of guys where even if they pan out they probably aren't putting up .5 PPG regardless
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,711
Sweden
It feels like this is at least a partial response to me, so I'm going to chime in here. My issue with Holland is less to do with who drafts right now than how he has built this Wings team. I think he's set the Wings up to fall into that ugly purgatory of drafting in the teens for awhile, outside of draft lottery help moving us up the board, and it's going to stall any rebuild efforts for awhile.
Same as you I dread being in "purgatory". I'm fine with making the playoffs and drafting 15th, but missing and drafting 14th wouldn't be fun. We had bad luck last summer though, most years we get a top 5 pick there. If nothing drastic happens this year we'll probably finish in a similar position, maybe even worse. I don't think bottom 5-6 in the leagues is purgatory at all. All things considered it's a pretty good "rebuilding position". Not a total trainwreck where players are completely miserable, but still good odds at a top 3 pick and a guaranteed top 10.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Regarding your first sentence/paragraph, absolutely.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I just hope people understand it is a double-edged sword. The more you dismantle the team to embrace drafting high, the more pieces you have to add back in later on. On the flip side, continuing to sign the Trevor Daley and Frans Nielsen's of the world give you a little buffer from the bottom falling out entirely. Both approaches have their issues.

I also think we take for granted how easy it would be to replace some of what we take about moving for draft picks. We have done well with drafting wingers outside of the 1st round, but it is actually very difficult to draft .5 PPG forwards outside of the 1st round, like Tatar and Nyquist are. It seems a lot of people just think we can do that again, but the reality is we haven't done that since 2009 (Tatar), to my knowledge. Even if you assume AA gets there and maintains it, he was drafted 5 years ago (2012). It's way harder than people realize.

There's a cost for every decision you make. And as I have said many times, I think re-building a team in the current landscape of the NHL is probably the hardest it has ever been.

I agree. I know that what I tend to be in favor of has land mines and is as likely or moreso to land us in purgatory than it is to lead us to a title. That is my issue. I am aware of the pitfalls of my way of thinking. I am aware that if not done right, it prolongs the pain. But so many times, it seems like the other side of the argument comes across as "burn the whole thing down" like that is a panacea to all of our ills. Nothing we have is worth a damn... so let's set fire to Rome and pray that something good comes from the ashes.

Where do I think the elite players will come from? The draft. I think that if the Wings are going to be good in the future, it is because they have drafted well with whatever picks they have. I understand the stats and likelihood of draft pick success... but a difference of 10% in lottery chances is not enough for me to punt away any happiness of watching my team. With it being so difficult to rebuild, I can put up with some purgatory. You can say it is a waste of time to do so and I get it... but the scars are too deep as a Lions fan for me to willingly say about any team "Hey, I'm okay with my team deciding to willingly suck." Particularly with the last few years when we've been transitioning from one of the owners who was absurdly generous with his checkbook in all aspects to a team of people led by his son who were rumored to be so much more pragmatic and business like as opposed to a fanatic. Willing to rebuild can turn into "accepting of ****ing garbage" too quickly for my liking.
 

WingedWheel1987

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
13,324
903
GPP Michigan
The Wings already suck, but they suck a little less than the other non playoff teams. The Wings aren't making the playoffs for a very long time. You might as well make the best out of a bad situation.

I seriously hope people don't think that this team is gonna be on the outside looking in for a couple more seasons and then go back to being a playoff team for the next 5-6 years. 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.

Folks gotta realize that the decisions the Wings have been making for the past nine years, where they kept kicking the can down the road, now means that a complete tear down is the only viable strategy.
 

TheMule93

On a mule rides the swindler
May 26, 2015
12,466
6,512
Ontario
What it all boils down to is that we need elite talent. What can we do to give us the best shot at getting elite talent?

Its as simple as that. If the organization isn't trying its very best to get elite talent, then it has failed themselves and the fans.

This is under the assumption that the end goal is to generate revenue, which in theory, would best be done by icing a competitive team to attract fans, which requires elite talent. Illitch may have differing opinions on the matter, though. Unfortunately for us, it's not about the fans, it's about $$.
 
Last edited:

TheMule93

On a mule rides the swindler
May 26, 2015
12,466
6,512
Ontario
From what I can tell, illitch thinks he's better off by keeping us out of the bottom which would hemorrhage casual fans (most of the fans) and revenue as a result. This strategy would continue, as it has for the past half a dozen years, until we strike gold again in the draft with our mediocre picks.

The alternative is to try to quickly turn it around by "tanking" for what would hopefully be only a few years. During this time fans/revenue would predictably decline. The payoff is that afterward you hopefully have good talent to build a competitive team around and attract fans with for the next decade. There is, of course, risk to this. You could fail to actually acquire elite talent and then youve tanked and lost revenue for nothing, and will have to spend more time at the bottom, and lose even more money.

I can see I'll tichels perspective as an owner where he wouldn't want to risk doing a rebuild and getting nothing to show for it for quite some time. He'd rather play it safe.

From my perspective as a fan, that strategy blows. I'd rather have the excitement of possibly getting a great talent in the draft, than being able to watch slightly better hockey all season (that is still mostly unwatchable) with an extremely small chance at getting elite talent.

Fortunately Holland is a moron and can't even implement illitchs greed strategy of keeping us semi competitive, we suck anyway which means we have a realistic shot at elite talent via the draft. I just fear his refusal to accept that we suck will prevent us from effectively rebuilding while we are close to the bottom. He might try to keep improving by signing more vets, while Larkin/Mantha improve and do an OK job at keeping us out of the bottom 10 and closer to the bottom 15-10 range. Meaning we still have no elite talent and were no longer bad enough to realistically draft any. For the next decade.
 

Dotter

THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Jul 2, 2014
8,439
2,880
Imprisonment, TN
goo.gl
The team stagnating for years after Lidstrom retired and after 5 years finally missing the playoffs to where we could start the rebuilding process is on Holland. The bloated contracts on this roster are all on Holland. The lack of trades to move things forward is on Holland.

Holland is not a proactive GM, and he has done a poor job for a while, now.

The team stagnating for years after Lidstrom retired and after 5 years finally missing the playoffs to where we could start the rebuilding process is on Holland. The bloated contracts on this roster are all on Holland. The lack of trades to move things forward is on Holland.

Holland is not a proactive GM, and he has done a poor job for a while, now.
The team stagnating for years after Lidstrom retired and after 5 years finally missing the playoffs to where we could start the rebuilding process is on Holland. The bloated contracts on this roster are all on Holland. The lack of trades to move things forward is on Holland.

Holland is not a proactive GM, and he has done a poor job for a while, now.

How many teams tank when their owner who brought the "Dead Things" to "Hockeytown" is living on borrowed time and are enjoying a 24 year playoff streak....? something that the owner is clearly proud of.

How many teams that have such an important owner, who has a short time to live, who has fought so hard to build a brand new state of the art 1 billion dollar arena purposely tank?

Seems you convienvly left those facts out. People are all die hard "TANK, TANK, TANK" without considering any important background information. The problem is you (and others) don't think it's important. It's about "what have you done for me lately" without considering how ownership, ya know the people who pay the salaries, feel.

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet. Bitching isn't going to change anything. And honestly, I don't think they need to change anything now the streak is ended, they are on track.

And no the Helm, Abby and etc contracts don't bother me. They are overpaid for a reason. And that's to have gut and heart support for the future health of the team during these dark times. Can you imagine what Mantha's development would look like if he doesn't have people out there -leading by example- working their butts off?

I think you misread my post. At no point did I say anything was guaranteed. I said that I want to maximize my chances in every way possible. The cold hard math for doing that is to finish as close to dead last as you can, and to collect as many extra picks as you can along the way.


Again, you're arguing against something I didn't say. I ASKED YOU where YOU thought the talent would come from, and I cited the observation that Detroit has gone from a premier free agent destination, to a cozy corner for retreads. So again...if it's not from the top handful of picks in the draft, where is this highly conservative, very set in their ways regime going to strike gold?

Just to touch on your last point. I'm not for tanking. but as Wings naturally lose and draft better that is fine by me. I see no point in being last years Avs only to draft 4th overall. When they can be the Flyers of last year and draft 2nd. Gotta love the lottery.
 

Dotter

THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Jul 2, 2014
8,439
2,880
Imprisonment, TN
goo.gl
quickly turn it around by "tanking"

Sorry to quote just this piece. But I think it is important to say to others here there is no "quick turn around by tanking".

Maybe people are just mad KH didn't start the tank when they knew Mike Ilitch was living on borrowed time. Which is extremely selfish and inconsiderate. After everything Mr. I has done for the City and Red Wings... they are upset about a 2 or 3 year earlier head start. Seriously?

That seems very disgusting to me. True definition of - 1st world problems -. Show some goddamn respect to the man who brought us so many years of enjoyment. f***!
 

dangledangledeke

Registered User
Sorry to quote just this piece. But I think it is important to say to others here there is no "quick turn around by tanking".

Maybe people are just mad KH didn't start the tank when they knew Mike Ilitch was living on borrowed time. Which is extremely selfish and inconsiderate. After everything Mr. I has done for the City and Red Wings... they are upset about a 2 or 3 year earlier head start. Seriously?

That seems very disgusting to me. True definition of - 1st world problems -. Show some goddamn respect to the man who brought us so many years of enjoyment. ****!

Oh, c'mon.

For as much as Mike Illitch gave, he took. He cost Detroit Taxpayers $324 MILLION dollars while monopolizing things like parking structures and forcing people out of their homes. This, in a city that has amongst the most concentrated poverty rates and low life expectancy rates. Want to know his Net Worth? $6.1 BILLION. This man certainly afforded us some great years by letting an organization do there jobs and funding it. But, he is no saint.

I agree there is no quick turnaround. That said, the turnaround could be expedited if the team were being looked at through a realistic lens. There's no guarantee your rebuild works either way, but you have a much better chance succeeding if you are putting yourself in a position to select higher potential players. That likely won't happen if they continue to toil away in mediocrity. Just missing the playoffs every season and then blowing draft picks by overvaluing things like size.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,853
8,578
Dotter, you seem to be under the impression that Holland's only alternative to tanking was to sign guys like Helm and Abdelkader to golden parachute contracts. Even if I'm staunchly against anything resembling a tank...that doesn't force me to spend every cent I have as rashly as possible. There's a whole lot of happy medium in between 'scorched earth' and 'country club'.
 

Red Stanley

Registered User
Apr 25, 2015
2,414
778
USA
Regarding your first sentence/paragraph, absolutely.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I just hope people understand it is a double-edged sword. The more you dismantle the team to embrace drafting high, the more pieces you have to add back in later on. On the flip side, continuing to sign the Trevor Daley and Frans Nielsen's of the world give you a little buffer from the bottom falling out entirely. Both approaches have their issues.

I also think we take for granted how easy it would be to replace some of what we take about moving for draft picks. We have done well with drafting wingers outside of the 1st round, but it is actually very difficult to draft .5 PPG forwards outside of the 1st round, like Tatar and Nyquist are. It seems a lot of people just think we can do that again, but the reality is we haven't done that since 2009 (Tatar), to my knowledge. Even if you assume AA gets there and maintains it, he was drafted 5 years ago (2012). It's way harder than people realize.

There's a cost for every decision you make. And as I have said many times, I think re-building a team in the current landscape of the NHL is probably the hardest it has ever been.

Exactly. The issue I've had for a long time, which was justifiable when we were still winning, was the super slow and super conservative integration of draft talent. The moment we missed out on Suter, there should've been a change in philosophy. I loved the streak, but Holland definitely stagnated the team while extending it an extra 3-4 years. I understood and sympathized with the motive, but disagreed with the method. That said, we're not in a terrible position as is. If a few of the prospects pan out and we draft some more good ones, that's basically the rebuild. I'm not fixating on that once-in-a-blue-moon generational talent, because I like my sanity. I'd rather find out if our scouting/development is good enough with the higher picks they haven't had in more than 20 years.
 

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
Regarding your first sentence/paragraph, absolutely.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I just hope people understand it is a double-edged sword. The more you dismantle the team to embrace drafting high, the more pieces you have to add back in later on. On the flip side, continuing to sign the Trevor Daley and Frans Nielsen's of the world give you a little buffer from the bottom falling out entirely. Both approaches have their issues.

I also think we take for granted how easy it would be to replace some of what we take about moving for draft picks. We have done well with drafting wingers outside of the 1st round, but it is actually very difficult to draft .5 PPG forwards outside of the 1st round, like Tatar and Nyquist are. It seems a lot of people just think we can do that again, but the reality is we haven't done that since 2009 (Tatar), to my knowledge. Even if you assume AA gets there and maintains it, he was drafted 5 years ago (2012). It's way harder than people realize.

There's a cost for every decision you make. And as I have said many times, I think re-building a team in the current landscape of the NHL is probably the hardest it has ever been.

Any rebuilding team, no matter what strategy used, simply has to have multiple instances of luck in a short period of time to go along with making good moves.

Penguins got lucky they went bankrupt and became terrible in years they could draft a couple of generational superstars instead of a Yakupov and an Erik Johnson. Hawks got lucky getting Seabrook at #15, Keith in the 2nd round, and the the #1 and #2 picks ahead of them took Erik Johnson and Jordan Staal instead of Toews, etc etc

Wings have a few nice young pieces but need a bit of luck now....get lucky and jump up in the draft lottery and get Dahlin, then have one of the dman prospects exceed expectations and become a top pairing guy.....suddenly the future is looking pretty solid. Sure, that's a lot of ifs and is ultimately probably unlikely to happen.......but I don't think that's too much different from the luck other championship/great teams have gotten.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lomekian

Dotter

THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Jul 2, 2014
8,439
2,880
Imprisonment, TN
goo.gl
Dotter, you seem to be under the impression that Holland's only alternative to tanking was to sign guys like Helm and Abdelkader to golden parachute contracts. Even if I'm staunchly against anything resembling a tank...that doesn't force me to spend every cent I have as rashly as possible. There's a whole lot of happy medium in between 'scorched earth' and 'country club'.

So basically you are saying they are rebuilding but just not the way you personally want them to?

I couldn't care less about how the "country club" as long as they keep drafting well and attracting UFA they can trade off at deadline (Vanek, Ott -probably Green- and whoever else) for free pics. Hakan Andersson hasn't picked up a noteable player since what, Franzen? Kronwall? Give him some pics to work with so he can redeem himself. And I hope he does.

Last draft Detroit Red Wings drafted more prospects than they had in over 20+ years. You are "probability/odds" person, right? Do Wings have a better chance at snagging more talent if they have more draft picks to work with? I think that gives them a better chance than "scorched earth" and possibly drafting 4th-7th after finishing bottom 5.

So to *help* attract these UFA players, you probably need to show them a sense of hope from the organization. You need to show your kids that you are not throwing them out to the wolves to get eaten alive, Wings are going to find depth to help support them as they learn the game on the highest possible level... unlike Oilers, Sabres, and whoever else that can't get over the hump.

I believe rebuilding takes calculated risks... and propaganda. I believe Ken Holland is walking a line that helps them both now and in the future. It helps them now because they are drafting more prospects than ever before (over 20+ years) and they are still attracting talent while the kids feel a real sense of *hope* that makes them they want to be part of. I think the contracts for Helm and Abby is and old and overused talking point that means nothing at all. NOTHING. It's old and worn out. Find new material. That one is not working. And never really did work. It effects the future and rebuild of the team none-what-so-ever. Zilch, NONE!

in the next 3 years McDavid isn't going to find and out-clause in Oilers contract and sign here for a discounted price. Matthews isn't ever going to jump ship to come to Detroit for a discounted price. Aaron Ekblad isn't jumping ship to come here.... so why does Detroit need all this spare cap money? If you show me where Ken Holland failed to strategically obtain a top 10 player under the age of 23 that he couldn't sign due to cap restraints, then I am all ears. That is fantasy, that will never happen in a million years.

This "needing cap space" argument is soooooo overrated, it's pathetic. It's not your money, so who the f*** cares?!??
 
  • Like
Reactions: waltdetroit

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->