Article: It's time for Kenny to go

[StargateSG1]

That interview tells me that Holland thinks he can continue to make the playoffs and lose in the first round and while doing so find elite talent to turn the Wings into a contender. Sadly it doesn't work that way. You can't have your cake and eat it too. All you end up getting is no playoffs and no draft picks high enough that give you a realistic shot of breaking the cycle.

Props to him from changing his slogan from "Anything can happen" to "Who knows?"

Oh well, Kenny should lose his job when the Wings have to negotiate a new TV deal in a couple years and the Wings continue to ice the most expensive roster in the league while at the same time being one of the worst and most unwatchable teams in the league.

He said exactly that, and brought up Nashville as an example of "anything can happen".

 

[Shaman464]

Yeah, it is, almost word-for-word, in fact.

No, it's not. No one here has said 'I want the wings to possibly eek into the playoffs, and hope that they somehow either beat the odds on getting a lottery pick from 14th in line, or even less likely somehow repeat the star alignment of 20 years ago and hope to draft super stars in the 7th round'. That's what Holland has said, it is DECIDEDLY not what people wanted here.

 

[Red Stanley]

No, it's not. No one here has said 'I want the wings to possibly eek into the playoffs, and hope that they somehow either beat the odds on getting a lottery pick from 14th in line, or even less likely somehow repeat the star alignment of 20 years ago and hope to draft super stars in the 7th round'. That's what Holland has said, it is DECIDEDLY not what people wanted here.

Yeah, it is. Learn to listen/read. Until then, there's no point in me trying to have an honest conversation with someone who categorically denies reality, while, hilariously, accusing others of doing it.

 

[vladdy16]

Additionally, it's long past time to stop pretending that Yzerman is the GOAT GM and the only way forward. He's literally the definition of a painfully average GM if you take 5 seconds to forget about his playing career for us.

Painfully average was the ceiling for that franchise before Yzerman got there. Now they are one of the most complete and stable organizations in the NHL.

If most other GM's make the 'mistake' of not burning their team to the ground as soon as it looks like their window might be closing, does it perhaps begin to enter your thoughts there are reasons for a reluctance to do so beyond that decision being a 'mistake'?

The people who were pushing and pushing and pushing for the past 5 years for the "kids", like Tatar, Nyquist, Ouellet, Sproul, Jensen, Marchenko, Jarnkrok, Pulkinnen, Frk, Ferraro,
and Callahan to play, are claiming that they were proven right and smarter than the GM.

Yet we have those people playing now, and we are no good.


As per usual, nobody ever had an actual plan to build a winner other than "be bad"

Quoted for posterity.

 

[Heaton]

Because 'being bad' is the most proven way to get good.

 

[vladdy16]

'You shouldn't complain' tripe is pretty amazing.

"I have a broken leg!" "Well wanting to get it fixed is just complaining, sometimes its better to stay with what you know, the broken leg!"

Your argument is inane. This team is a busted leg. We can complain about that. We know that this team isn't going anywhere if it stays on the current path. But, if you want to put your fingers in your ears, and rose colored glasses on an pretend everything is okay, well this is America, and for now you have the right to do it.

But you're being presumptious that you know what the teams current path is. That's why we're congregating here to share perspectives.

Honestly I think you are mistaking the old Babcock path as being still connected to our current path. There aren't many teams that have rebuilt more aggresively than the Wings since Babcock left.

 

[vladdy16]

Because 'being bad' is the most proven way to get good.

Source?

 

[Bench]

Source?

Every dominant team lately? Kings, Chicago, and Pittsburgh all on the backs of high draft picks. Those 3 teams combine for 8 of the last 9 Cup wins. And 9 of the last 10 Cup appearances.

And you're a Red Wings fan. You know that Yzerman guy was pretty good, too. The entire Wings legacy doesn't happen without drafting a top 5 pick that would become one of the greatest to ever play. If you drafted after #10 that year, you ended up with the likes of Normand Lacombe. Yeah, who? Exactly. The only guy from that draft after #10 even worth a damn is Dave Gagner, who is a far, far, far cry from Yzerman.

Look, I know we love to think of the Wings as the team that won in 2008 without the tank and that's our big point of pride. But let's get some real talk. The Wings dynasty started on the back of a lottery pick and grew because they were one of the highest spenders in a league with no salary cap. Other big spenders also had incredible teams at the time. Colorado, Detroit, and Dallas dominated the West in both wins and payroll. But none of it matters if the Wings don't land Yzerman to anchor those teams year after year.

 

[vladdy16]

Every dominant team lately? Kings, Chicago, and Pittsburgh all on the backs of high draft picks. Those 3 teams combine for 8 of the last 9 Cup wins. And 9 of the last 10 Cup appearances.

And you're a Red Wings fan. You know that Yzerman guy was pretty good, too. The entire Wings legacy doesn't happen without drafting a top 5 pick that would become one of the greatest to ever play. If you drafted after #10 that year, you ended up with the likes of Normand Lacombe. Yeah, who? Exactly. The only guy from that draft after #10 even worth a damn is Dave Gagner, who is a far, far, far cry from Yzerman.

Look, I know we love to think of the Wings as the team that won in 2008 without the tank and that's our big point of pride. But let's get some real talk. The Wings dynasty started on the back of a lottery pick and grew because they were one of the highest spenders in a league with no salary cap. Other big spenders also had incredible teams at the time. Colorado, Detroit, and Dallas dominated the West in both wins and payroll. But none of it matters if the Wings don't land Yzerman to anchor those teams year after year.

Yzerman isn't a terrific example, considering he was drafted in 1983, and won his first cup in 1997.

Between '97 and '08, Chicago missed the playoffs 9 out of 10 seasons.

LA missed the playoffs 11 of 15 years after '93.

They drafted 11th overall 3 years in a row, and went 1 for 3. They drafted in the top 5 3 years in a row and they went 1 for 3.

The Pittsburgh franchise was in danger of relocation.

Those aren't insignificant consequences, or really close to tolerable timelines.

 

[Bench]

Yzerman isn't a terrific example, considering he was drafted in 1983, and won his first cup in 1997.

Between '97 and '08, Chicago missed the playoffs 9 out of 10 seasons.

LA missed the playoffs 11 of 15 years after '93.

They drafted 11th overall 3 years in a row, and went 1 for 3. They drafted in the top 5 3 years in a row and they went 1 for 3.

The Pittsburgh franchise was in danger of relocation.

Those aren't insignificant consequences, or really close to tolerable timelines.

Oh of course. Yzerman is a terrible example because being #7 ALL TIME in points isn't significant enough. They won later. He barely had anything to do with it. I mean, if you ignore his 154 points over the 156 games he played (which lead all Red Wings), you can see how he was barely relevant all that time later. Oh and only #2 in playoff scoring during those wins being 3 points being Fedorov.

I never thought I'd be on a Wings forum where someone was so quick to minimize the impact of Steve *** Yzerman. This is fun.

Let me guess, Crosby doesn't count either because he won his back-to-back Cups 12 years after he was drafted?

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Yzerman isn't a terrific example, considering he was drafted in 1983, and won his first cup in 1997.

Between '97 and '08, Chicago missed the playoffs 9 out of 10 seasons.

LA missed the playoffs 11 of 15 years after '93.

They drafted 11th overall 3 years in a row, and went 1 for 3. They drafted in the top 5 3 years in a row and they went 1 for 3.

The Pittsburgh franchise was in danger of relocation.

Those aren't insignificant consequences, or really close to tolerable timelines.

He was drafted in '83 and by '89 he put up a 155 point season (good for 14th on the all-time list and the first entry that is not Gretzky or Lemieux).

As a player Yzerman is a terrific example, which is the context of Bench's post. The Wings got Yzerman because they were terrible and had the 4th overall pick.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yeah, it is. Learn to listen/read. Until then, there's no point in me trying to have an honest conversation with someone who categorically denies reality, while, hilariously, accusing others of doing it.

I did. I will even repost a quote you grabbed from the interview.

"McDavid and Mathews are outliers. Who knows when the next one will come along ... (mentions how the draft order came out this year) If you think you're just gonna bottom out and sit and wait till a generational player comes along and you're gonna get lucky in the lottery and you're gonna get the first pick of the draft, might be 20 years, might be 10 years, it might never happen. There are good players in the draft ... they're out there. It's not an exact science. Certainly the generational players, the superstars that hit the league at 19 and 20, they're one two and three, but they're not every year. They come in sporadically. You're never sure when they'll come along. That's why most teams that are going through massive rebuilds, it's a cross section of entry drafts, it's a long period of time. And once you draft those players, you need to give them 4 or 5 years to become of age, other than the generational players. (Gives an example of the last time the Wings built through the draft it took 15 years to win and that was with less teams competing for picks.) My philosophy for the Red Wings is it's a parity league (mentions the salary cap eating away at teams' depth). We have to continue to draft. We want to compete, we want to try to make the playoffs. (Mentions Philly getting #2 pick.) You don't know. The odds are that the top (he means bottom) three teams are gonna get the top three picks, but it's just odds and you're playing odds. At the end of the day we're trying to get more draft picks and I'm gonna hang on to our draft picks. In the mean time at the NHL level we're going to try to put a team on the ice that we believe can compete ... It's tough to build something that will be better than everybody else. In the mean time, let's try to compete (one game at a time). (If you're actually competitive, who knows?)"

The idea we shouldn't focus on a hard rebuild and should try to compete every year for some franchise player that we might luck into at 7th-13th in the draft order is exactly what a lot of fans on this site cannot stand about Holland. If you are the one making the argument that those who are anti-Holland subscribe to what I just posted above, you are the one who is dismissing reality and being dishonest.

 

[vladdy16]

Oh of course. Yzerman is a terrible example because being #7 ALL TIME in points isn't significant enough. They won later. He barely had anything to do with it. I mean, if you ignore his 154 points over the 156 games he played (which lead all Red Wings), you can see how he was barely relevant all that time later. Oh and only #2 in playoff scoring during those wins being 3 points being Fedorov.

I'm sorry, who is arguing about how good of a player Yzerman was?

I never thought I'd be on a Wings forum where someone was so quick to minimize the impact of Steve *** Yzerman. This is fun.

Let me guess, Crosby doesn't count either because he won his back-to-back Cups 12 years after he was drafted?

You sure do like to guess...

Again... who is arguing about the impact of Steve Yzerman? I was asking for a source on tanking being a reliable strategy for rebuilding, so if you want to pick up the discussion from there...

He was drafted in '83 and by '89 he put up a 155 point season (good for 14th on the all-time list and the first entry that is not Gretzky or Lemieux).

As a player Yzerman is a terrific example, which is the context of Bench's post. The Wings got Yzerman because they were terrible and had the 4th overall pick.

Ask Steve Yzerman if building that Red Wings team that won in 97, or could have potentially won in 93-96, was as simple as tanking in 1982.

Steve Yzermans journey to the stanley cup is one of the most dramatic and epic storylines in sports history. I think it's a very poor example for the reliability of a tank.

edit/also: Between the 1966 Stanley Cup Finals and drafting Steve Yzerman, the Red Wings missed the playoffs 14 of 16 seasons.

 

[Run the Jewels]

He was drafted in '83 and by '89 he put up a 155 point season (good for 14th on the all-time list and the first entry that is not Gretzky or Lemieux).

As a player Yzerman is a terrific example, which is the context of Bench's post. The Wings got Yzerman because they were terrible and had the 4th overall pick.

It's simply breathtaking to see the extent the Holland supporters will twist reality to fit their worldview. I am quite enjoying myself!

 

[Heaton]

Again... who is arguing about the impact of Steve Yzerman? I was asking for a source on tanking being a reliable strategy for rebuilding, so if you want to pick up the discussion from there...

Go to Wikipedia and look at the past NHL drafts.

 

[vladdy16]

It's simply breathtaking to see the extent the Holland supporters will twist reality to fit their worldview. I am quite enjoying myself!

What are you talking about?

 

[jkutswings]

I really agree with this. Mike Illitch put the tigers in an unfair position by expressing his wish that they win a championship before he dies. Dombrowski recognized that they missed their chance, and he went in to sell mode, and he got canned. Ken Holland is working in that same envoronment.

Dombrowsk got canned for shopping his name to other teams, not for how he ran Detroit's roster.

 

[vladdy16]

Go to Wikipedia and look at the past NHL drafts.

That's what we're in the process of doing. I've already got my point about LA having the same amount of success picking in Kopitar range as they did picking in Doughty range, and I already have my point about how long CHI and PIT and DET were at the bottom before finding momentum changing success in the draft.

Feel free to fire back.

 

[Run the Jewels]

What are you talking about?

We're talking about how you build a championship team in the salary cap era.

 

[vladdy16]

We're talking about how you build a championship team in the salary cap era.

Oh cool. What're your thoughts?

 

[Heaton]

That's what we're in the process of doing. I've already got my point about LA having the same amount of success picking in Kopitar range as they did picking in Doughty range, and I already have my point about how long CHI and PIT and DET were at the bottom before finding momentum changing success in the draft.

Feel free to fire back.

I don't need to, the proof is in the pudding. History tells us teams get their elite talent through drafting in the top 5. Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Doughty, Toews. There's always outliers, but be it hockey, football, basketball whatever, you have some bad seasons, you usually get rewarded.

 

[Bench]

Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Doughty, Toews.

9 of the last 10 Cup appearances and 8 of the last 9 Cup wins among that group. But hey, it's not reliable. It's all one big coincidence.

 

[Heaton]

9 of the last 10 Cup appearances and 8 of the last 9 Cup wins among that group. But hey, it's not reliable. It's all one big coincidence.

Even teams who didn't draft that high and had success usually find top end talent through trades. San Jose traded for Thornton (former 1st overall), Boston had Seguin and Kessel. Tanking of just being bad on accident has always been the best way.

Unless Holland starts trading, we'll need some more really bad seasons to get that elite talent. Expecting the team to find another Datsyuk or Zetterberg is unreasonable.

 

[stu the grim reaper]

The ilitches will never let this team tank again; its too hard on revenue. Holland is just following orders.

 

[vladdy16]

I don't need to, the proof is in the pudding. History tells us teams get their elite talent through drafting in the top 5. Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Doughty, Toews. There's always outliers, but be it hockey, football, basketball whatever, you have some bad seasons, you usually get rewarded.

100% of the players you listed came on the heels of something way beyond the definition of "some bad seasons". If your premise was that your odds are better as your draft position nears the top, obviously there's no argument, but that's not what I'm looking for sources on.

Can anyone offer a historical precedent that's been set, beyond the 76ers or the Oilers whom I'll add to my chamber of points, of a team that's even ventured to undertake a multiple season tank?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097815/