Are we better than we think we are?

[Frk It]

Nobody is suggesting they don't add to the roster. I feel like you're seeking something to disagree with, for the sake of disagreeing, and have latched onto something that I wasn't even speaking on.

I just thought your original comment was setting yourself (or others if they agreed) up for disappointment. What Winnipeg did up front and Nashville did on the back end was damn impressive. To suggest we can strive to do the best elements of both is just too ambitious IMO.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I just thought your original comment was setting yourself (or others if they agreed) up for disappointment. What Winnipeg did up front and Nashville did on the back end was damn impressive. To suggest we can strive to do the best elements of both is just too ambitious IMO.

No, it's just that we are currently in a spot that is reminiscent of how they got to where they are, not that their paths are the norm by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Pavels Dog]

That's fair. I wouldn't call it a failure. It's just that, on my top ten list of goals for the rebuild, another Stanley Cup is (what feels like) goals #1-#5, so it would still be a bitter pill to swallow.

If you have a ~10 year run as a good/great team that looks like they have a chance every year, and you never win the cup.. of course in retrospect it will look/feel like a failure of sorts.. but at the same time that's a 10 year run of likely entertaining hockey, star players, playoff series, hopes, expectations.. that's all you can really ask for imo.

 

[Flowah]

I guess the real point I want to get at here is, how much of a butterfly effect can small improvements have?

I've shown in the OP that a lot of our games were very close compared to the rest of the league.

Hockey is a low scoring game. Lots of games are going to be "close" in score without actually being close. Saying we just needed 1 more goal is wrong. You need 2 more goals to win. 2 goals is a lot in hockey.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Hockey is a low scoring game. Lots of games are going to be "close" in score without actually being close. Saying we just needed 1 more goal is wrong. You need 2 more goals to win. 2 goals is a lot in hockey.

A significant part of my narrative has been the 10 OT losses. OT losses are close close. Single random bounce close.

Of the other 1-goal games, you are absolutely correct that SOME of them were not necessarily one-bounce games. But some of them may have been.

In any case, a 1-goal game is clearly closer than a 3-goal game.

 

[RedWingzz]

I would agree, but I don't think Detroit will necessarily have to rely on those 4 players as their top 4. Even if I immediately throw out any shot at landing EK, I think Detroit does have a decent chance at getting Trouba in another year, and he would be a major boost to those other players. I still don't know that Detroit would be comparable to Nashville in that department, but after that addition and the current track of development on the other kids, they would be a lot more functional than they are now.

Yeah for sure. With the emergence of Hronek, and the first half that Cholowski had, these guys are legitimate top 4 D. I think we are a top pair D, and a depth D away from being a playoff team next year. As soon as you get a true #1, everybody else can slide into a more suitable role. Dekeyser has actually had a decent year, but in a perfect world he's a 2nd pair guy, he has no business on the top pair.

Top Pair D- Green
Dekeyser-Hronek
Cholowski-Depth D (or even Daley here)
Bowey

Easier said then done, and I have no idea where this top paid D will come from, but with our decent group of forwards, we are a #1 D from being relevant.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Yeah for sure. With the emergence of Hronek, and the first half that Cholowski had, these guys are legitimate top 4 D. I think we are a top pair D, and a depth D away from being a playoff team next year. As soon as you get a true #1, everybody else can slide into a more suitable role. Dekeyser has actually had a decent year, but in a perfect world he's a 2nd pair guy, he has no business on the top pair.

Top Pair D- Green
Dekeyser-Hronek
Cholowski-Depth D (or even Daley here)
Bowey

Easier said then done, and I have no idea where this top paid D will come from, but with our decent group of forwards, we are a #1 D from being relevant.

I like to think [hope] we can swap Hronek and Green.

 

[RedWingzz]

I like to think [hope] we can swap Hronek and Green.
View attachment 208791

I'd be fine with it. I love Hronek, I think the poise that he plays with is incredible for his age. He is one of the best players that nobody has heard of around the league. He's been playing top pair recently, and looking good doing it. That said, I still think a veteran Mike Green is more reliable then a 2nd year Hronek. I would for sure have Hronek on PP#1 though.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

We certainly have a lot of talent and potential, but do keep in mind that most of the games we're winning are meaningless at this point, they're either against teams that already made the playoffs or teams that are tanking.

This. People are interpreting this recent run as a big step forward that will carry over to next season. I'm skeptical. For my money this is similar to dominating the preseason... which this team has also done, to zero meaningful effect.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Our defense is still crap, if not worse. Our goaltending is still average at best, even with Howard having to stand on his head a bunch of times. The bulk of our offense still consists of primarily coming from 3 players.

How are we better than we think? IMO, we're not better, other tirefire teams are making us seem better than we are.

 

[Pavels Dog]

This. People are interpreting this recent run as a big step forward that will carry over to next season. I'm skeptical. For my money this is similar to dominating the preseason... which this team has also done, to zero meaningful effect.

Every season is a new season, I don't believe much in "carry over", but to compare this to pre-season is pretty ridiculous. Looking at rosters, we should be losing pretty much every game. Would anyone have given the Pens much credit if they beat the Wings 8-0? Nah, it would have been all "let's see them against an NHL team" type comments. And Pens still haven't clinched a playoff spot, so they have something to play for.

Give this team credit for what they've done lately. Is it meaningful for next season? Probably not in terms of team performance, but the individual performances (Larkin, Mantha, Hronek, Bert, AA, Hirose) gives some hope. We still have major roster issues that need fixing though.

 

[odin1981]

I also kind of get the impression that people are underestimating both the chance and impact of a potential non-draft acquisition.

Yes it has been a while (mainly because of cap space and maintaining the playoff streak), but we have a history of acquiring guys like Shanahan, Hull, Hasek, Hossa, Rafalski. I'm probably missing some obvious ones. I really think [hope] something like this is coming soon, and it will be a really big deal.

Why would Erik K want to come here? And really that's the only player in this year's FA that would help solve our biggest glaring need.

 

[Henkka]

Our most important core players Larkin, AA, Mantha, Bertuzzi, and Hronek are 22, 24, 24, 24, 21 years old. The average age of an NHLer is 25 years old.
I can add some 19-year olds in Zadina, Veleno, Rasmussen and 21-year Cholowski, but those are more unknown so far.

This was the first REAL SEASON, where kids carried this team.

No Zetterberg, like last season. Datsyuk gone earlier.

This young kid core will only be better in the becoming season. Somebody will regress, somebody will get injured, but the the majority will get better.

We are not any better than we are at the moment. We were predicted, by almost every statistical model, to be 2nd last after Ottawa. Now we are looking a little bit better, but it's hair-cutting. Thanks to Balshill's good coaching and growth from kids. LAK and BUF have been abysmal, and they will make the difference.

With these standards, we can expect better at next season. Because the kid core will take more ice-time and more heavier minutes, and they are a bit better again. They develop. And we bring more kids in to develop also depth. These Hiroses give us more depth. At some point the depth and growth will overvalue opposite teams depth.

Then the winning team will be born and we will hit the playoffs again.

 

[ricky0034]

Why would Erik K want to come here? And really that's the only player in this year's FA that would help solve our biggest glaring need.

maybe he's super impressed by the Wings winning streak

all those wins in a row without Abdelkader,once him and his amazing leadership are back the skies the limit

 

[Athana see you later]

I thinks tonight’s game will show is quite well where all these young guys are at

 

[TheOtherOne]

Why would Erik K want to come here? And really that's the only player in this year's FA that would help solve our biggest glaring need.

Same reason anyone goes anywhere. To make money, play hockey, and try to win a Cup.

 

[ricky0034]

Same reason anyone goes anywhere. To make money, play hockey, and try to win a Cup.

i'm as big a Karlsson fan as you'll find but if he wants to come here this offseason to try and win a cup i'm not sure I want him anymore since clearly all that time out from his injuries somehow gave him some serious brain damage and he should probably just retire

 

[Gniwder]

I thinks tonight’s game will show is quite well where all these young guys are at

It certainly did. PK not good enough, and Pens shut down the first line. Not enough secondary scoring to make it anywhere close.

 

[odin1981]

Same reason anyone goes anywhere. To make money, play hockey, and try to win a Cup.

He is going to be paid Max anywhere he goes so money is nil. We as fans are looking for another 3-4 bad years maybe more and that's if our d prospects all hit so that we have something that resemblance of a top 4.

 

[marcmadsen]

Let me rephrase I guess. Maybe disappointed was the wrong word to use. Would you consider the rebuild a failure if the results end up like the Lightning or Bruins of the past 7 seasons? Because I don't see how the above could be considered a failure of a rebuild. If that's the standard, then teams like Nashville, San Jose, Capitals (until last year happened anyways) are failures as franchises in recent years....and I just don't believe that to be the truth.

Disappointment, sure....But if the Red Wings are as successful as the Lightning have been, that's a successful rebuild even if the end results are slightly disappointing.

I totally get what you're saying and really wish I could agree, but I don't. I think there is a huge difference between having competitive teams that are entertaining and being truly successful. Of course, it all depends on how you define success. In my mind, the goal of any NHL team or any rebuild, is to ultimately win championships. So, (from your example) if Nashville and San Jose don't end up winning a championship with the cores they have, then yes I would consider it a failure (at least in the macro, big picture, overall sense).

Teams and rebuilds can have successes along the way. Goals for one season compared to another can change. Barometers for success are relative when broken down into steps of progression. For example, this season the DRWs goal was not to win the championship. The goal was to see a significant development from young, core players that we hope will eventually form the nucleus of a championship season. So, in that sense this season can be viewed by some as a success (despite their record indicating failure). Next season, the barometer of success changes. To some, next season will be a success if they make the playoffs. The next season, winning a round etc.

However, all of these small successes are steps along the way to the penultimate goal of winning a championship. If this rebuild goes all the way to the DRWs being year in and year out contenders and they reach the finals only to lose it'll be a fun and entertaining ride with a series of successes along the way. But if they never achieve the overarching goal of winning a Stanley Cup, then to me it's a failure (by the narrowest of margins, but a failure none the less).

The goal is to win the cup. It take a ton of little victories and successes along the way, but the goal is to win. I'm not saying failing to win a cup (in the above scenario) is the same type of failure and being perennial chumps like Edmonton. There are varying degrees of failure. But getting a silver medal, albeit better than all but one person/team in your heat, is still a failure because the overall goal was not achieved.

To me, it's all relative though. What's a success to one isn't necessarily one to another

 

[obey86]

I totally get what you're saying and really wish I could agree, but I don't. I think there is a huge difference between having competitive teams that are entertaining and being truly successful. Of course, it all depends on how you define success. In my mind, the goal of any NHL team or any rebuild, is to ultimately win championships. So, (from your example) if Nashville and San Jose don't end up winning a championship with the cores they have, then yes I would consider it a failure (at least in the macro, big picture, overall sense).

Teams and rebuilds can have successes along the way. Goals for one season compared to another can change. Barometers for success are relative when broken down into steps of progression. For example, this season the DRWs goal was not to win the championship. The goal was to see a significant development from young, core players that we hope will eventually form the nucleus of a championship season. So, in that sense this season can be viewed by some as a success (despite their record indicating failure). Next season, the barometer of success changes. To some, next season will be a success if they make the playoffs. The next season, winning a round etc.

However, all of these small successes are steps along the way to the penultimate goal of winning a championship. If this rebuild goes all the way to the DRWs being year in and year out contenders and they reach the finals only to lose it'll be a fun and entertaining ride with a series of successes along the way. But if they never achieve the overarching goal of winning a Stanley Cup, then to me it's a failure (by the narrowest of margins, but a failure none the less).

The goal is to win the cup. It take a ton of little victories and successes along the way, but the goal is to win. I'm not saying failing to win a cup (in the above scenario) is the same type of failure and being perennial chumps like Edmonton. There are varying degrees of failure. But getting a silver medal, albeit better than all but one person/team in your heat, is still a failure because the overall goal was not achieved.

To me, it's all relative though. What's a success to one isn't necessarily one to another

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I just disagree but I completely understand your point.

I see it as you seem to think that a franchise ultimately has one main goal over the course of several years....to win a cup or cups. My feeling is that a franchise has multiple concurrent goals, all of which are important. Those multiple goals in my mind often include (among other things) 1) Building a cup contender, 2) Sustaining competitiveness for multiple seasons, 3) Making multiple deep playoffs runs, 4) Drafting consistently well, 5) Winning multiple division titles 6) Making the playoffs more often than not, etc etc etc

So while a franchise may fail at one of their goals (in this case, winning the cup) it doesn't make the entire tenure a failure....it just means they failed at that one specific goal, among many. That's how I see it.

If TB's last 7 seasons in totality are a "failure," then Steve Yzerman should have been fired. Failing franchises don't keep their general managers after 7 seasons, which in totality, were a "failure" due to no cups. So while a franchise may fail at one of their goals (in this case, winning the cup) it doesn't make the entire tenure a failure - at least in my mind. Let's assume that the Lightning get knocked out in the playoffs again this year. If Yzerman's entire TB tenure in totality was a failure (in your mind, and people who feel like you) why would we want the Red Wings to hire him as a GM?

 

[ricky0034]

I think ultimately people just don't like to admit how much of a crapshoot the playoffs are,the best you can do is build the best team you can and hope it works out

plenty of very good teams have lost early in the playoffs in the past and plenty more will in the future,hockey has a great deal of luck from game to game,injuries often play a big role,and honestly a best of 7 just isn't all that big of a sample size

cup or bust mentalities often lead to very good teams making moves that they really shouldn't just to shake things up and are the cause of that silly thing the league does sometimes where teams go into an endless cycle of twisting and turning to follow trends just because one particular style happened to win a few playoff rounds

building a team that is good enough to plausibly compete for cups? that's a different story,but I don't think a failure to win cups really says anything meaningful at all about teams like san jose

 

[Perfect Human]

If and when the wings make the playoffs in the next few years, I am excited to watch Bertuzzi in the playoffs.
His style will be tough to manage over a seven game series.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Better than a lot of jilted Hfers? Sure, maybe, but I'm thinking maybe people are overreacting a bit after this little streak we w went on

 

[marcmadsen]

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I just disagree but I completely understand your point.

I see it as you seem to think that a franchise ultimately has one main goal over the course of several years....to win a cup or cups. My feeling is that a franchise has multiple concurrent goals, all of which are important. Those multiple goals in my mind often include (among other things) 1) Building a cup contender, 2) Sustaining competitiveness for multiple seasons, 3) Making multiple deep playoffs runs, 4) Drafting consistently well, 5) Winning multiple division titles 6) Making the playoffs more often than not, etc etc etc

Maybe that's the difference in views then. I see it in the sense that teams have a multitude of goals (such as those you listed) but that all of those goals are sub-goals of the ultimate goal (i.e. winning championships). I don't see all of these goals as being a flat line or equal to one another. It's like a company can have multiple VPs but they have one President. I think things like drafting consistently, winning division titles, making the playoffs etc. are measures of success along the way as you build towards the penultimate goal. I'm not even saying they aren't important or critical to the process. Of course if a franchise could look back on the past ten years and choose having been competitive, drafting well, winning division titles, and not having a cup vs. not being competitive, not drafting well, not winning division titles, and not winning a cup we all know what their preference would be.

So while a franchise may fail at one of their goals (in this case, winning the cup) it doesn't make the entire tenure a failure....it just means they failed at that one specific goal, among many. That's how I see it.

If TB's last 7 seasons in totality are a "failure," then Steve Yzerman should have been fired. Failing franchises don't keep their general managers after 7 seasons, which in totality, were a "failure" due to no cups. So while a franchise may fail at one of their goals (in this case, winning the cup) it doesn't make the entire tenure a failure - at least in my mind. Let's assume that the Lightning get knocked out in the playoffs again this year. If Yzerman's entire TB tenure in totality was a failure (in your mind, and people who feel like you) why would we want the Red Wings to hire him as a GM?

I think we look at situations like this as being all or nothing, black of white. I don't think your example of Yzerman having been the GM of TB for 7 years is very fair to the core of this discussion. I'm not discounting the structure and development of franchises. I don't think we can paint failure with one big, broad brush. I used an example in my previous post, saying that winning a silver medal (although an accomplishment) is still a failure. It's certainly not the same type of failure as coming last in your heat but it's still not accomplishing the penultimate goal. So, when we look at Yzerman and TB do I think it was a failure? Yes and no. I think their process of reaching for or trying to achieve the penultimate goal is still ongoing. Is it an overarching success yet? No, not to me. Have they had several other accomplishments and successes that are fundamental to achieving the overall goal of winning a championship? Absolutely. But as good as all of those things are, and they really are good, until they win a championship they aren't a true success.

In my mind, a good hypothetical would be the Red Wings during the 90's with Yzerman as captain. Imagine they had never won the cup in 97, 98, or 02. Let's say for argument sake that they made the finals in all of those three years but ended up losing. Would you classify Yzerman's tenure and the franchise during those years as successful knowing that their goal was winning championships? I wouldn't. I would say they were really friggin good and came awfully close, but overall it was a failure. They would have enjoyed a ton of fun, entertaining accomplishments along the way but overall we'd all be left wanting more. Just ask the all those really good Ottawa Senators teams who never won it (coming close in 2007) if it was a success. I agree some will agree with you and say yeah sure it was. But a lot of us would say that awesome as it was, it just wasn't good enough.

I think you can measure successes and failures in varying degrees. So, in that sense, I'm saying there is validity to both of our opinions so by no stretch am I saying I think you're 'wrong'. I would argue that teams that are really good but don't win it (i.e. Ottawa in those years, SJ with their core if they never win it etc.) are successful in ways, just not the most important way (i.e. Stanley Cups)