2 Things I hope we have learned from this season

[Flowah]

One team out of 30 wins the Cup. Does that mean the other 29 teams are failures? Some of them had good plans. They only failed because other teams had better plans.

There's a hard limit of 1 winner per year. That necessarily means that even if other teams had the right idea and execution, eventually there is only 1 winner and everyone else loses. Being hardcapped at 1 winner means even if you found an alternative universe and found a team identical to that year's winner in every single way and had them play against each other, you would still find one come out on top. That doesn't mean the other (identical) team is worse. It just means there's a hard cap.

That does not even come close to suggesting you can't see that some plans and methods are failures and some are not. There are still legitimate contenders and there are outsiders looking in. We're very clearly the latter and we've very clearly been the latter for years now.

There is no reasonable universe in which our method of "rebuilding" thus far cannot be judged to suck.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

2 Things I hope we ALL have learned from this season, and our current position:

1) “Re-building on the flyâ€, or “re-building while staying competitive†is not, and was never a viable plan to actually fully transition this team. It was a nice thought. It was nice in theory. We got some extra years to the streak and had a good run. But unless you get very lucky and/or have a significant advantage in scouting (like we did circa 1989-2001), it is just not realistic to completely (or successfully) transition the core of a hockey team.

2) In light of Point #1… We need a new core. We do not currently have the components for a competent core on this team. The prospects in the pipeline are largely wildcards, and are all likely several years away from making the team and/or having an impact for this team. It is far more likely that they (Hronek, Saarijarvi, Cholowski, Svechnikov, etc.) become supplemental pieces to the core, than core pieces.

1) Agreed. The post 02 rebuild-on-the-fly worked because we snagged Datsyuk and Zetterberg, still had Lidstrom, and drafted half a rosters worth of quality complimentary players.

Post 09, we still managed to draft half a rosters worth of quality complementary pieces. But we had no Lidstrom, and we didn't manage to find two elite forwards to replace Dats & Z.

It's been said many times - we hoped Tatar and Nyquist could be the next Datsyuk and Zetterberg. They turned out to be the next Hudler and Filpulla.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

IMO, we need a new GM and scouting staff before even thinking of a new core.

I have zero faith in Holland and Co. entering any kind of rebuild. Even mentioning it is pointless while he's still at the helm.

When Holland is gone, let me know. I'd love to talk rebuild, but until then, I'm content in riding this out until all 4 wheels and spare are long gone.

I think the most interesting element in this entire thing is how Holland handles this, mentally. It sure seems like he has a lot of pride, and cares about his legacy. He's got to view this as tarnishing the Ken Holland story a little.

I bet Zetterberg feels the same way. These are competitive people. Even though the bar has been getting lower and lower every year, they still had something to document their success: the streak. To lose that has got to be tough. It's going to be hard for them to swallow their pride and admit it's done. I wouldn't be surprised if both of them try their hardest to resist what's happening, to take one last kick at the can.

Of course, it's different for Zetterberg because he's losing ground every year in his physical game. But Holland probably thinks he can keep going for years to come, so we might see some kind of drastic overcorrection as he tries to assert some control over his situation.

 

[cjm502]

I think rebuilding on the fly is completely possible, but in the cap area it takes some bold moves (trades) and a little draft luck. It is not impossible to ice a competitive roster on a team with no type if internal cap. Before the cap area you could build through free agency, and now that is the expensive option and not a long term fix. Kennys lack of balls to do anything bold and awful free agency signings have crippled this team long term. Mike Green was a good signing, and Vanek is a nice short term signing, but besides that Kenny hasnt done a damn thing to keep this team competitive in recent years. In the cap area you have to be bold, bottom line. You cant just sit on your cards and hope for the best like the days when there was no cap or the days we still had Lidstrom and a prime D and Z.

 

[Run the Jewels]

I think rebuilding on the fly is completely possible, but in the cap area it takes some bold moves (trades) and a little draft luck. It is not impossible to ice a competitive roster on a team with no type if internal cap. Before the cap area you could build through free agency, and now that is the expensive option and not a long term fix. Kennys lack of balls to do anything bold and awful free agency signings have crippled this team long term. Mike Green was a good signing, and Vanek is a nice short term signing, but besides that Kenny hasnt done a damn thing to keep this team competitive in recent years. In the cap area you have to be bold, bottom line. You cant just sit on your cards and hope for the best like the days when there was no cap or the days we still had Lidstrom and a prime D and Z.

Yeah, I think I would have been more open to the idea if he actually made moves that indicated he was serious and not just saying what everyone wanted to hear. Things like:

• Proactive trades that actually address needs.
• Revamping North American scouting
• Give Hakken Andersson more draft picks
• Gave younger players an opportunity earlier on

Those are all moves that fit in perfectly with the idea that you are serious about "rebuilding on the fly". Holland did none of those which is why it was obvious this was doomed to failure.

 

[jkutswings]

Regarding "re-building on the fly"

of Current standings, top 3 teams in each division:
Montreal Ottawa Boston
Pittsburgh Rangers Columbus
Chicago Minnesota St. Louis
San Jose Anaheim Edmonton

of these teams, how many are loaded with top 5 picks from the past 7-8 years? How many have been playoff bubble teams that made small changes over time to put together an improved team


of Current standings, bottom 3 teams in each division:
Buffalo Detroit Toronto
New Jersey Carolina Islanders
Dallas Winnipeg Colorado
Los Angeles Vancouver Arizona

How many of these teams are loaded with top 5 picks from the past 7-8 years? How long have we been hearing that they are a year away from putting it all together?



If you were to describe one group as "tanking for the last 8 years" and one as "re-building on the fly for the last 8 years", which would be which?



It's almost as if there is no specific formula and rooting for your team to lose is dumb
It's almost as if sports are a thing where teams are literally competing against each other.

Managing to reach top 3 in your division, 30-some games into the season, is a far cry from contending for, let alone winning a Stanley Cup.

Take a look at the teams that actually won the whole ball of wax, and it's a lot more cut and dry, in favor of acquiring high-end talent via high draft picks.

 

[Birko19]

The proof is that we didn't do it? That our core post Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall can't and doesn't look to be able to get the job done. So we will resort to having to draft high like every other team despite preaching that rebuilding on the fly was viable.

The test was always what shape are we in after Datsyuk and Z (and to a lesser extent Kronwall) were gone, or declined to the point where they're no longer high end players. We're there. We are getting the answer this season.

Gotta give some of our youth like Larkin and Mantha a chance before you say they're not getting the job done. Remember, when Datsyuk and Zetterberg came over, the Wings were a modern dynasty like with plenty of hall of fame players to show them the ropes.

It took a good few years until our Euro twins truly took over the team (I'd say 2006 was the year they started), and even then they were still surrounded by previous core stars that were still playing high end hockey such as Lidstrom and Shanny along with an elite team with depth all around, our current youth does not have the that luxury.

The timing is certainly bad, if we had kids like Larkin and Mantha back in 2010 for example, chances are this team would have the replacement for our previous core today.

 

[Frk It]

The timing is certainly bad, if we had kids like Larkin and Mantha back in 2010 for example, chances are this team would have the replacement for our previous core today

Where would the #1 defenseman have come from? Where would the other top 6 center besides Larkin have come from?

Gotta give some of our youth like Larkin and Mantha a chance before you say they're not getting the job done. Remember, when Datsyuk and Zetterberg came over, the Wings were a modern dynasty like with plenty of hall of fame players to show them the ropes.

What players do you think need more of an opportunity to know what we have with? Larkin is the one core piece I feel good about. And even with him, he really needs to learn how to slow the game down and be a better playmaker. And he needs to continue working on his transition back to center.

 

[SirloinUB]

I'm failing to see how it's not the same thing. It didn't work, so therefore REALISTICALLY it was never a viable plan. It was possible if we had had drafted Subban, Benn and others like I mentioned. But we did not. If you want to nitpick on how the first point is phrased I can edit that part. But the clear main point there is that we didn't do it.

What would be needed to validate that point in your opinion? I phrased it that way because personally I never bought into it as a viable succession plan to our previous core.

What's not realistic is to expect a successful business who is making the playoffs to strip it down and rebuild before they have actually failed. Theoretically, it may be prudent but it's just not going to happen, no matter who owns or manages the team.

This has been my stance all along. They have to actually fail before they can rebuild. And whether you guys like it or not, They have not failed. The cup or bust attitude is nice, but can only exist in forums and video games. There is no place for it the real world where dollars matter. The reality is there are different thresholds of success. A cup is one. Others include playoffs, profitability and an ability to had young players to support your future, all of which the DRW are doing reasonably well at.

Some famous hockey player once said, "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take." This absolutely applies to the concept of rebuilding on the fly. It would be crazy for them to not attempt the rebuild on the fly and disregard current success for a bunch of lottery tickets.

 

[MTU hockey]

2005 - Vlasic and Letang
2007- P.K. Subban and Jamie Benn
2008- Roman Josi
2010 - Kuznetsov

I still don't understand how you could be afraid of the Russian factor when you have one of the best Russian players in the world on your team. Like, what kid (Russian or not) wouldn't want to join a NHL team and play along side Datsyuk? I wonder how good Kuzy would be if he spent ~2 seasons practicing alongside Dats....

 

[Birko19]

Where would the #1 defenseman have come from? Where would the other top 6 center besides Larkin have come from?

You need to accept that we were spoiled in the past, as of now this team is going down and a rebuild is unavoidable. But saying that guys like Larkin and Mantha are not taking over from the previous core is not fair considering the situation.

Btw, if you're calling Kronwall a number one guy, remember that he was nothing significant until he turned 26 years old. His game started to rise from then but even with that, he was blessed to spend most of his career with one of the greatest d-men of all time, so not only did he learn from Lidstrom, he also was never truly the number one guy outside the past 3 seasons or so.

You never know, maybe one of our young d-men has it in him to elevate to that next level. There was a time where we thought the likes of Sproul and Ouellet would be the next Weber/Suter, not saying it would happen, but we have a lot of young d-men with skills, one or two may shine with time.

What players do you think need more of an opportunity to know what we have with? Larkin is the one core piece I feel good about. And even with him, he really needs to learn how to slow the game down and be a better playmaker. And he needs to continue working on his transition back to center.

Like I said, a rebuild is unavoidable at this point, what other players do I think need an opportunity? Whoever does good or shows promise, give him a shot, other than Larkin I would say guys like Mantha and AA are a start, but also don't forget about the overall depth, meaning bottom-6 and lower pairings are also very important.

 

[Frk It]

What's not realistic is to expect a successful business who is making the playoffs to strip it down and rebuild before they have actually failed. Theoretically, it may be prudent but it's just not going to happen, no matter who owns or manages the team.

I don't disagree, I said as much here:

I don't even really fault Holland for holding out on re-building for so long. It was always going to be hard to re-build this team with Datsyuk and Zetterberg, and I never at any point wanted to move those players. I just never personally believed that re-building on the fly was ever going to be the answer.

For me, those are 2 very different things.

but

This has been my stance all along. They have to actually fail before they can rebuild. And whether you guys like it or not, They have not failed. The cup or bust attitude is nice, but can only exist in forums and video games. There is no place for it the real world where dollars matter. The reality is there are different thresholds of success. A cup is one. Others include playoffs, profitability and an ability to had young players to support your future, all of which the DRW are doing reasonably well at.

Are you suggesting that we are doing in the 16-17 season could be described as succeeding?

 

[Pavels Dog]

As an aside, it's so weird to think about the rebuilding on the fly thing. The Wings certainly did it once, but it's like they decided that since they now knew it was possible, they could do it every time from then on. That's like thinking winning the lottery once makes it easier to do it a second time.

And it takes a special kind of arrogance to think that you can rebuild on the fly *twice* before anybody else ever does it once. Like they really thought they were that much better than every other front office.

That's one way to look at it. The other is that ownership, management, coaches and players don't have much of an interest in actively trying to be as bad as possible.

List all the Management groups that have torn apart a perennial playoff team on purpose in an effort to gain top picks and rebuild.

GO.

Are you suggesting that we are doing in the 16-17 season could be described as succeeding?

List all the Management groups that have blown up a team 30 games into a season because they're struggling.

GO.

 

[SirloinUB]

I don't disagree, I said as much here:


but



Are you suggesting that we are doing in the 16-17 season could be described as succeeding?

Well for one, this year is incomplete so the result is still technically TBD. However if you keep reading I say, "The reality is there are different thresholds of success. A cup is one. Others include playoffs, profitability and an ability to add young players to support your future, all of which the DRW are doing reasonably well at."

To start a rebuild before they have actually missed the playoffs would be to put the cart ahead of the horse. It just doesn't add up.

 

[obey86]

What is your proof? A sample size of 1? Apparently the years up to 2008 don't count, otherwise you could say we did it successfully. So we have an 8 year sample. How many teams have tried to rebuild within that 8 years? How many teams had high draft picks in those years that disqualify them? All of them? So one team tried to rebuild on the fly one time, and it didn't work. And that's proof that it can never work?

I don't think it would have taken a miracle. All we needed was a couple of our D drafts to perform to expectations. If Mrazek was actually decent this year, and if Datsyuk didn't leave, and if Kronwall didn't decline so fast, and if Kindl was playing for us like a first round draft pick, we could still easily be a playoff team. It sucks that those things didn't happen but they weren't inevitable. It could have turned out differently.

By the way, I just flipped a coin, but it didn't come up tails. I guess that's proof that flipping a coin and getting tails was doomed to fail from the start and I never should have tried it.

I've brought up this same thing numerous times. People don't understand it for some reason.

Unless i'm mistaken, every other team has had a high draft pick or two in recent history. Like you said, it's comparing the results of the single team without a high pick to the combined results of 29 other teams. It's just a stupid comparison because of that. Of course the way that 99% of the league has acquired players is going to come out on top more often than the 1 team.

Considering the entire league has high draft picks (minus the Wings), the Red Wings would literally have to win the cup every single season for "all the stanley cup winners had high picks!!!!" to not be true.

The Red Wings could have easily rebuilt on the fly is they had drafted just a few different players in the 1st round and gotten a bit of luck. The players they drafted was their downfall, not the strategy.

 

[Frk It]

List all the Management groups that have blown up a team 30 games into a season because they're struggling.

GO.

So confused why I'm being asked to do this.

 

[Pavels Dog]

So confused why I'm being asked to do this.

They have to fail before they can rebuild. They have never failed. Agreed?

 

[Frk It]

They have to fail before they can rebuild. They have never failed. Agreed?

Yeah, but I mean we are right now so just stay the course. No need to even blow anything up.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

They have to fail before they can rebuild. They have never failed. Agreed?

But the question is: fail at what? If their goal was to contend for a cup, they failed years ago.

I think some of us think that the goal has been watered down year by year, to the point where "just make the playoffs" is not a goal worth having. It's like having the goal to pass your classes with a C. If that's your goal, it's a disappointing one.

In a sense, this relates back to the greater conversation we're having: if your goal is to win the Stanley Cup with an excellent team, the rebuild on the fly thing never, ever had a chance. Now if your goal is to squeak in and pull out a Cinderella win, maybe you could argue that's possible in a way that the other is not. It's all in how you define success for the team.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I've brought up this same thing numerous times. People don't understand it for some reason.

Unless i'm mistaken, every other team has had a high draft pick or two in recent history. Like you said, it's comparing the results of the single team without a high pick to the combined results of 29 other teams. It's just a stupid comparison because of that. Of course the way that 99% of the league has acquired players is going to come out on top more often than the 1 team.

Considering the entire league has high draft picks (minus the Wings), the Red Wings would literally have to win the cup every single season for "all the stanley cup winners had high picks!!!!" to not be true.

The Red Wings could have easily rebuilt on the fly is they had drafted just a few different players in the 1st round and gotten a bit of luck. The players they drafted was their downfall, not the strategy.

Lemme get this straight.

The Wings could have easily rebuilt on the fly if they had done a bunch of things differently?

Well then...

The reason the Wings were the only team attempting to rebuild on the fly is because they had Nicklas Lidstrom on the roster for 20+ years.

That type of longevity and high ceiling that Lidstrom had gave the Wings a unique advantage that no other team could lean on.

Once Lidstrom retired, the Wings were like every other team in the league, but the Wings kept operating like they still had that unique advantage that no other team had.

 

[Frk It]

The Red Wings could have easily rebuilt on the fly is they had drafted just a few different players in the 1st round and gotten a bit of luck. The players they drafted was their downfall, not the strategy.

You realize the task you are describing here is not only the exact opposite of easy, but would have to defy the odds in a very improbable way... right?

The strategy resulted picking in exclusively low percentage areas. So it is all tied together.

 

[obey86]

You realize the task you are describing here is not only the exact opposite of easy, but would have to defy the odds in a very improbable way... right?

The strategy resulted picking in exclusively low percentage areas. So it is all tied together.

"Defy the odds?" Na.

Having 1 or 2 draft picks turn out much better than expected isn't defying the odds. It's getting lucky, but I wouldn't say "defying the odds". Nearly every team in the league has a player or two that seriously outperformed their draft slot.

The Blackhawks got their star, top 3 defenders, with the 15th, 54th, 108th picks. That's just as much defying the odds as anything the Red Wings would have had to do to remain competitive. So is the Penguins drafting two generation talents two years in a row is also defying the odds. Probably mores actually. What are the odds that happens to another team? Has it ever happened before in history?

I don't see how either of those two scenarios are any less lucky than lucking into a PK Subban or a Shea Weber in the 2nd round.

 

[Frk It]

"Defy the odds?" Na.

Having 1 or 2 draft picks turn out much better than expected isn't defying the odds. It's getting lucky, but I wouldn't say "defying the odds".

The Blackhawks got their star, top 3 defenders, with the 15th, 54th, 108th picks. That's just as much defying the odds as anything the Red Wings would have had to do to remain competitive.

Ok, just because the Blackhawks did it doesn't mean their odds of doing it weren't ridiculously low. They were.

It's good to know things are possible. It doesn't make them probable. If my neighbor wins the lottery I don't just assume that now I have a shot.

 

[HockeyinHD]

2 Things I hope we ALL have learned from this season, and our current position:

1) “Re-building on the flyâ€, or “re-building while staying competitive†is not, and was never a viable plan to actually fully transition this team. It was a nice thought.

I'm not sure that was ever the point. I've always felt that when Detroit said 'rebuild on the fly' it was more of a nod to staying as good as they could while not missing the playoffs... especially once the hard cap well and truly kicked in.

2) In light of Point #1… We need a new core.

If the goal is to become a multi-year Stanley Cup contender, sure. Is it?

I don't spend a lot of time chasing quotes on the Net, but has anyone in the organization anytime over the past 4-5 years ever said anything about how they were designing their strategies around winning a Cup or Cups? Maybe they have and I've just missed it, but every time I hear Holland or whoever chatting about the team on a macro level it's always sounded a lot like 'we're going to just try and keep improving, blah blah blah.'

 

[Dotter]

2 Things I hope we ALL have learned from this season, and our current position:

1) “Re-building on the flyâ€, or “re-building while staying competitive†is not, and was never a viable plan to actually fully transition this team. It was a nice thought. It was nice in theory. We got some extra years to the streak and had a good run. But unless you get very lucky and/or have a significant advantage in scouting (like we did circa 1989-2001), it is just not realistic to completely (or successfully) transition the core of a hockey team.

2) In light of Point #1… We need a new core. We do not currently have the components for a competent core on this team. The prospects in the pipeline are largely wildcards, and are all likely several years away from making the team and/or having an impact for this team. It is far more likely that they (Hronek, Saarijarvi, Cholowski, Svechnikov, etc.) become supplemental pieces to the core, than core pieces.

I wonder how much city politics are involved in the new arena. If the franchise were dwellers, would the city be interested in backing 250 million part of the arena by property tax?

How is the arena's construction being financed?

The Michigan Strategic Fund will sell $450 million in two series of bonds. They will be divided into $250 million in Series A bonds that will be backed by property taxes already captured by the Downtown Development Authority. The $200 million in Series B bonds will be backed by the $11.5 million Olympia Development has agreed to pay the DDA for bond retirement.

You have to think "building on the fly" marketing might have helped owership get city backing.