ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,032
- 11,728
I saw them advertising that and I wasn't sure whether it was awesome or the cringiest thing the Wings have tried to market.
Detroit has 27 points in 28 games, with a cap hit of $78.3M ($0 in cap space).
Edmonton has 24 points in 27 games, with a cap hit of $67.9M ($7.1M in cap space).
Riiiiiiight. Apparently 'doing it the right way' is spending another $7M do earn another 3 points in the standings (in one extra game played, and with no elite talent to show for it).
Ten bucks says the Oilers find a way to win a playoff series before the Wings do.
My point is that Detroit's strategy can't be touted as better than Edmonton's, because there is currently little difference between the success of the two franchises.
Now, one can argue that each strategy has simply been poorly executed, and their current respective success is not necessarily an indictment on the plan. But if that's the case for the Wings, then the anti-rebuild crowd needs to stop using Edmonton as a reason not to tank, if poor execution doesn't necessarily mean poor strategy.
Wouldn’t get too hyped about this result (although I do love seeing Nyquist boost his trade value). Winnipeg came into this game facing a bottom 25% team who has been embarrassed by mediocre teams of late. I highly doubt they came in here respecting this squad just like we rarely respected bottom feeders back in the day. But I guess we can still party like CBJ fans did back in the ‘00s whenever they beat us...
Yup, trying to maintain a winning culture or well atleast a competative culture will be key in our rebuild.
Players like Zetterberg and Kronwall will all be key for young guys, just imagine being Eichel, he was thrown into a garbage team with no mentors and was told "hey kid, make us win games". As long as we have Zetterberg he will be the teams leader, no matter how many amazing talents join the team.
Detroit has 27 points in 28 games, with a cap hit of $78.3M ($0 in cap space).
Edmonton has 24 points in 27 games, with a cap hit of $67.9M ($7.1M in cap space).
Riiiiiiight. Apparently 'doing it the right way' is spending another $7M do earn another 3 points in the standings (in one extra game played, and with no elite talent to show for it).
Ten bucks says the Oilers find a way to win a playoff series before the Wings do.
If you're solely talking about cup wins and deep playoff runs, sure.
If you compare the revenue from the Oilers 10 years of missing the playoffs vs. Detroit's 10 years of making them (tickets, playoff gear, concessions, parking, etc).... there's a HUGE difference in strategies.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of a difference. It's a business.
Detroit has 27 points in 28 games, with a cap hit of $78.3M ($0 in cap space).
Edmonton has 24 points in 27 games, with a cap hit of $67.9M ($7.1M in cap space).
Riiiiiiight. Apparently 'doing it the right way' is spending another $7M do earn another 3 points in the standings (in one extra game played, and with no elite talent to show for it).
Ten bucks says the Oilers find a way to win a playoff series before the Wings do.
Where did this conversation between Detroit and Edmonton even start? And who cares?
I was trying to point out that lots of Holland defenders like to use Edmonton as the poster child for why Detroit should never tank. That's like saying, because you had an idiot for a geometry teacher, that you no longer believe in mathematics.
Poor execution of ANY strategy is just that, and does not, in and of itself, invalidate the strategy.
Here's my post from the AA thread:Buffalo also says hi, and Toronto hasn't gotten anywhere yet, so other than Chicago and Pittsburgh, what are other examples of successful tanking, becuase I am pretty sure there aren't any. Arizona and Florida are also always drafting high as has Carolina, and yet where is this supposed success from drafting high constantly?
Saying that tanking fails all the time is misleading. Every single year, all but one of the teams fail to win the Cup; all but 4 fail to make it to the Conference Finals; all but 16 fail to make the playoffs. It's like saying that baseball players fail to reach base 70% of the time, so they must be awful. Every POSSIBLE strategy fails more often than it succeeds, or you'd see crazy things like the same team winning it all 7 out of 10 years.People really believe Ken Holland is the problem. They refuse to look around the league and see all the failed attempts and the decades it takes to rebuild from tanking.
I suspect those who dislike Holland are the same people who think a rebuild should take 2 or 3 years. It doesn't work that way.
This game was everything I don't want. Id take the Montreal game over this. The only things I root for is
1) Larkin and Mantha having good games
2) a loss
I don't care about - and generally dislike - the rest of the roster, coaching staff, ownership, and organization sans Zetterberg. And it mostly stems from Holland making some of these players overstay their welcome due to horrendous loyalty issues. For example I liked Cleary for a while but Holland kept bringing him back long after he was useless, so now when I see Cleary it's like you can **** off now, bud
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.People really believe Ken Holland is the problem. They refuse to look around the league and see all the failed attempts and the decades it takes to rebuild from tanking.
I suspect those who dislike Holland are the same people who think a rebuild should take 2 or 3 years. It doesn't work that way.
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.
That's where you're mistaken. You don't have to be the 31st team to draft #1. Heck, Oilers got McDavid and Sabres were worst. Avs were worse last year and the Devils drafted #1. Flyers @19 picked #2.
And who are all these elite talent players you speak of that reach FA that Ken Holland 'would' have been able to sign if he had cap space????
And the other Cup winners since the lockout:
Boston: More major trades in a few years than Holland has made in his career.
Anaheim: Selanne, Niedermayer, and Pronger all come from outside the organization.
Carolina: Staal was a 2nd overall pick, they made some trades, and Cam Ward played out of his mind.
So, if winning it all is the criteria for how to build a team, then Detroit needs some combination of top 5 picks, major trades, and super-elite goaltending. None of which are currently on the roster.
Where did this conversation between Detroit and Edmonton even start? And who cares? They got a ton of draft picks because management was terrible, couldn't draft outside of the first round (and weren't exactly batting 1000 there), couldn't develop their players, and couldn't develop any kind of winning culture. The Red Wings are just now starting their downswing into horribleness and could potentially be where the Oilers were from 2007-20015, but we don't know yet.
I was trying to point out that lots of Holland defenders like to use Edmonton as the poster child for why Detroit should never tank. That's like saying, because you had an idiot for a geometry teacher, that you no longer believe in mathematics.
Poor execution of ANY strategy is just that, and does not, in and of itself, invalidate the strategy.
Buffalo also says hi, and Toronto hasn't gotten anywhere yet, so other than Chicago and Pittsburgh, what are other examples of successful tanking, becuase I am pretty sure there aren't any. Arizona and Florida are also always drafting high as has Carolina, and yet where is this supposed success from drafting high constantly?
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.That's where you're mistaken. You don't have to be the 31st team to draft #1. Heck, Oilers got McDavid and Sabres were worst. Avs were worse last year and the Devils drafted #1. Flyers @19 picked #2.
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?And who are all these elite talent players you speak of that reach FA that Ken Holland 'would' have been able to sign if he had cap space????