GDT: Blue Jackets VS Red Wings l 11/26/18 l 7:30 PM EST

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

"Sometimes tanking doesn't lead to the exact result you want, therefore it isn't worth pursuing."

Because signing crappy free agents and re-signing our most expendable players to long-term deals has led to the team jumping right back into contention, right?

Nobody is asking the players to sit down and lose games. People want management not to care about short-term successes and focus on what helps them long-term. And they have done a decent job of doing that recently. Were you up in arms when they moved Tatar for picks? Will you be up in arms if they move Nyquist or Howard or both? Would you have been upset if we let Abdelkader or Helm walk if they wouldn't accept reasonable contracts?

I won't go as far as the other guy, but I think the bigger issue is that the "tanking crew" gets actively upset by us winning or see an 8 game out of 10 streak is met with handwringing. Or a 7-5 loss is "just how we wrote it up". Goalies are a creature of habit. Goalies are glue that hold a team together. You start having games where the goalie is swiss cheese and the team gives up around them and nobody develops.

You can want an exciting game and lots of goals, but I want guys to develop in competitive, hard-fought games. I want someone like Larkin to be putting it on the line to try to win every game he's in and get a couple of good signature wins even in a "useless" season.

There is a happy medium between tanking and doing what Detroit did from 2011-2016. I think they're striking it right now. But basically, I just take umbrage with "7-5 loss, oh that's awesome."

 

[Syckle78]

But a 7-5 loss is awesome. Young guys aren't giving up and rolling over and we didn't pick up points that do nothing for us. For years you specifically and many others whined about negativity and now when people are looking at positives you're going to whine regardless. Are you capable of being happy unless people act in the exact way you like?

 

[pz29]

"Sometimes tanking doesn't lead to the exact result you want, therefore it isn't worth pursuing."

Because signing crappy free agents and re-signing our most expendable players to long-term deals has led to the team jumping right back into contention, right?

Nobody is asking the players to sit down and lose games. People want management not to care about short-term successes and focus on what helps them long-term. And they have done a decent job of doing that recently. Were you up in arms when they moved Tatar for picks? Will you be up in arms if they move Nyquist or Howard or both? Would you have been upset if we let Abdelkader or Helm walk if they wouldn't accept reasonable contracts?

Maybe it is a matter of us understanding the word "tank" differently. To me, it means losing on purpose, not trying, and not caring. If that is not the meaning most others on this board put into it, I admit that I am wrong.

 

[ricky0034]

you will get a response. It is just my opinion, of course, as are everyone else's but I have said here before and will say it again that a deliberate tank is a stupid strategy where you pin your luck on a frigging lottery. I live in Orlando, and we have the Magic here. Ask them how this tank thing has worked out for them. Or ask Arizona or Edmonton. Yes, Buffalo is above us in the standings, but that may mean jack squat in a month or two. In the meantime, I want to watch and support a team that is trying to win games, not wait for some draft pick who may or may not work out a decade down the road.

who's pinning everything on a lottery?

there's a massive difference between say a Kirby Dach or a Bowen Byram and a Raphael Lavoie or a Cam York,no lottery luck required for that

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

But a 7-5 loss is awesome. Young guys aren't giving up and rolling over and we didn't pick up points that do nothing for us. For years you specifically and many others whined about negativity and now when people are looking at positives you're going to whine regardless. Are you capable of being happy unless people act in the exact way you like?

Not at all what I was meaning. Just more meaning to be careful about hoping for 7-5 games. It is good that our young guys are scoring.

You should be positive about that. It just worries me (and I suppose I'm more sensitive to it being a goalie myself) that over time, the team takes on the playstyle of the goalie and that it's harder to make sure the i's are being dotted and the t's are being crossed when you get in shootout mode all the time.

And also, a lot of times, it is mistakes by players that lead to goalies giving up goals. To be fair, I didn't see the goals in this game (was busy so didn't watch) to know whether that was the case or not, but I know if you're giving up 3+ a game, it's generally done with a sidehelping of defensive breakdowns.

Basically, you don't have to score a ton and give up a ton to show that your guys haven't given up. This game was 5-1 and out of hand about midway through. Kudos to them for fighting back, but eventually you want to get away from these. A 7-5 game where the other team lets their foot off the gas is not a "how we drew it up" moment.

I am fine with people looking for positives but "our young guys scored goals but our goalies gave up 7" shouldn't be a cause for celebration.

 

[HIFE]

Nielsen has been good. Glenny too. Abby okay. Vanek bad. Judge their play, not their age.

Age is a consideration because these guys are only declining. The glut of vets are dragging the play of Larkin, Bertuzzi, etc. down and it can be frustrating. TZE has had some nice things to say about Nielsen which I try to consider, but man is he a passenger. Reminds me of Danny Glover's character in Lethal Weapon, dude just want's to retire safely and cash his last checks. Abdelkader is a shell of the individual we saw from 2010-14 and it sucks. Most of our perspective is a matter of opinion. There's times I find the Wings infuriating and it has nothing to do with the score or results.

Sorry to rehash the same complaint but Holland chose to depend on 2 or 3 vets too many for my taste. I can see rewarding Helm because his name is inscribed on the Cup but a lot of the others...no thanks. It's my hope, which is easy to imagine, that Yzerman will have NO allegiance to the lot Holland has assembled. In 2 years some of our dead weight will be off the books but honestly I welcome a full house cleaning.

 

[Syckle78]

Not at all what I was meaning. Just more meaning to be careful about hoping for 7-5 games. It is good that our young guys are scoring.

You should be positive about that. It just worries me (and I suppose I'm more sensitive to it being a goalie myself) that over time, the team takes on the playstyle of the goalie and that it's harder to make sure the i's are being dotted and the t's are being crossed when you get in shootout mode all the time.

And also, a lot of times, it is mistakes by players that lead to goalies giving up goals. To be fair, I didn't see the goals in this game (was busy so didn't watch) to know whether that was the case or not, but I know if you're giving up 3+ a game, it's generally done with a sidehelping of defensive breakdowns.

Basically, you don't have to score a ton and give up a ton to show that your guys haven't given up. This game was 5-1 and out of hand about midway through. Kudos to them for fighting back, but eventually you want to get away from these. A 7-5 game where the other team lets their foot off the gas is not a "how we drew it up" moment.

I am fine with people looking for positives but "our young guys scored goals but our goalies gave up 7" shouldn't be a cause for celebration.

I would agree with you if our goalie was young and part of a long term plan but he isn't. And for the most part neither is our defense aside from cholo right now. So I can't be bothered to worry about them too much.

I am only concerned about how the guys we need to develop carry themselves in that situation. Remember early in the season when we were getting blown out and Larkin had the look of absolute dejection on his face? Idk if they stuck with anyone else but it stuck with me. I don't want that win lose or draw. The locker room seems to be in a good place and the team is scoring. I think that's absolutely cause for fans to be happy in a rebuilding year.

 

[HIFE]

...Basically, you don't have to score a ton and give up a ton to show that your guys haven't given up. This game was 5-1 and out of hand about midway through. Kudos to them for fighting back, but eventually you want to get away from these. A 7-5 game where the other team lets their foot off the gas is not a "how we drew it up" moment...

That's my take as well. Game was over in the first period, not sure what was so exciting.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Maybe it is a matter of us understanding the word "tank" differently. To me, it means losing on purpose, not trying, and not caring. If that is not the meaning most others on this board put into it, I admit that I am wrong.

That's definitely not what tanking means to me. Most athletes good enough to make it to an elite level hate losing even more than they enjoy winning. I would never expect the players and coaches not to try to win.

Tanking to me is when management takes a longer term view of the success of the team and makes moves to accumulate talent and in some cases (the Wings don't need this) change the culture, even though it means a lot of losing in the short term.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I would agree with you if our goalie was young and part of a long term plan but he isn't. And for the most part neither is our defense aside from cholo right now. So I can't be bothered to worry about them too much.

I am only concerned about how the guys we need to develop carry themselves in that situation. Remember early in the season when we were getting blown out and Larkin had the look of absolute dejection on his face? Idk if they stuck with anyone else but it stuck with me. I don't want that win lose or draw. The locker room seems to be in a good place and the team is scoring. I think that's absolutely cause for fans to be happy in a rebuilding year.

Gotcha. I understand that. Mostly, I just know that generally a shoot-out type game like this doesn't happen because you played particularly well. It is super positive that they have a never-say-die attitude on the team right now, but I also think a lot of that is predicated on the goalie tandem playing so well behind them. If Howard and Bernier fall off and become garbage, it eventually will take a toll on those young guys you are developing. Like you said how Larkin was dejected when we were losing big early. Get him on a roster with a goalie giving up 3-4+ a game and it won't be long before that sets in again.

I'm not worried about the development of Howard or Bernier or whatever... I just want them to be steady. We have enough guys on this roster that we are developing and trying to ride out their growing pains. I would rather have a control group in net where you know they'll play well enough to keep you in any game than a rollercoaster. Let the roster uncertainty fall on the young guys who are developing. I want to see what Larkin, Mantha, and AA do in one goal games late. In competitive games where the pressure is on. With potentially having to maintain a lead against a charging opponent.

It's kind of like the Lions and Stafford. When the game is actually on the line early, he does nothing. Then, when the other team loosens up their D, he pads the stats.

And mostly, I just don't want as a fan to get to where I'm celebrating "well, we sure did try hard" with the Wings. That kind of thing should be a given for me, not something to celebrate. And I'll never be "thrilled" about giving up a TD to the other team as like I said... so many times a goalie's bad performance isn't solely the goalie's bad performance.

 

[Syckle78]

Gotcha. I understand that. Mostly, I just know that generally a shoot-out type game like this doesn't happen because you played particularly well. It is super positive that they have a never-say-die attitude on the team right now, but I also think a lot of that is predicated on the goalie tandem playing so well behind them. If Howard and Bernier fall off and become garbage, it eventually will take a toll on those young guys you are developing. Like you said how Larkin was dejected when we were losing big early. Get him on a roster with a goalie giving up 3-4+ a game and it won't be long before that sets in again.

I'm not worried about the development of Howard or Bernier or whatever... I just want them to be steady. We have enough guys on this roster that we are developing and trying to ride out their growing pains. I would rather have a control group in net where you know they'll play well enough to keep you in any game than a rollercoaster. Let the roster uncertainty fall on the young guys who are developing. I want to see what Larkin, Mantha, and AA do in one goal games late. In competitive games where the pressure is on. With potentially having to maintain a lead against a charging opponent.

It's kind of like the Lions and Stafford. When the game is actually on the line early, he does nothing. Then, when the other team loosens up their D, he pads the stats.

And mostly, I just don't want as a fan to get to where I'm celebrating "well, we sure did try hard" with the Wings. That kind of thing should be a given for me, not something to celebrate. And I'll never be "thrilled" about giving up a TD to the other team as like I said... so many times a goalie's bad performance isn't solely the goalie's bad performance.

Agreed I definitely want steady goaltending. Which is why I'd rather keep Howard than trade him for a middling draft pick and go with Bernier and whoever. Bernier has proven to be terrible over the years with a full workload and I don't want these guys going into every game for months on end with no hope of even competing.

 

[jkutswings]

This thread is getting dangerously close to the category of mature and productive discussion.

Trade Larkin and sign Abdelkader to another extension!

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

This thread is getting dangerously close to the category of mature and productive discussion.

Trade Larkin and sign Abdelkader to another extension!

You know, if you really look at it, Ericsson hasn't been that bad this year.

But ya, Syckle, it's not so much that I want people to only be positive in my way, but a blowout that we make respectable in garbage time isn't something to celebrate.

I do gotta say it's nice to see them score. That's a problem on every team I've ever played on. It's so dejecting to know that you can't score at all. But also, you start racking up 5 goal games in losses and your forwards will eventually turn on your goalies and things will get sour.

 

[ricky0034]

This thread is getting dangerously close to the category of mature and productive discussion.

Trade Larkin and sign Abdelkader to another extension!

can't extend Abdelkader until his contract is closer to ending

i'm sure Holland has the date marked on his calendar for if he's still around though

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

can't extend Abdelkader until his contract is closer to ending

i'm sure Holland has the date marked on his calendar for if he's still around though

With little hearts and Abby's name spelled with an i with a heart on top instead of a y.

It's precious.

 

[jkutswings]

With little hearts and Abby's name spelled with an i with a heart on top instead of a y.

It's precious.

While holding his favorite coffee mug:

 

[jkutswings]

And they're thinking of rolling out a new sponsor for the pucks used at official team practices:

(Holland reserves the Abbi spelling for himself, and mandates that everybody else use Abby.)

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

At the signing, Ken Holland will cue up The Winner takes it all by ABBA.

 

[Flowah]

To me, it means losing on purpose, not trying, and not caring. If that is not the meaning most others on this board put into it, I admit that I am wrong.

There's just no such thing.

No player intentionally loses ever. Why? Because:

1. They're all intensely competitive. How can you not be when you're in the top 0.00001% of your sport?
2. They've got millions of dollars on the line. What player is going to phone it in when it could mean the difference between a $3Mx5 or a $6Mx7 contract? No one. And especially not because the GM comes up to you and says "look we're trying to tank here, don't play so hard okay?" Hell no.

No coach intentionally loses for the same reasons. Coaches get fired all the time. They wanna keep coaching? They need to coach in such a way where they can get hired again. You don't do that by intentionally throwing games.

GMs might be the only person in a franchise capable of and willing to lose intentionally. But that almost never happens either. Or if it does, it is nearly indistinguishable from rebuilding. Because the things you do to tank are the same things you do to rebuild. You trade away veterans and players who need a "change of scenery" in exchange for picks and prospects to reload in the next few drafts. Whether you're tanking or rebuilding it's the same process.

 

[The Tank]

GMs might be the only person in a franchise capable of and willing to lose intentionally. But that almost never happens either. Or if it does, it is nearly indistinguishable from rebuilding. Because the things you do to tank are the same things you do to rebuild. You trade away veterans and players who need a "change of scenery" in exchange for picks and prospects to reload in the next few drafts. Whether you're tanking or rebuilding it's the same process.

Exactly. Off the ice tanking and rebuilding looks the same, but on the ice it's totally different. And on the ice the Red Wings are clearly not tanking. This is a rebuildning process and there will be a lot of different types of games from the Red Wings. The part that I like the most is that it looks like the team has a fight in them and don't give up on games when they go down early.

It will be a blast for myself to attend my first games in Detroit later this season even though the team is in a rebuildning process.

 

[19 for president]

I'm pro whatever is best for the development of the players on the team, and maybe a tank for the last 20 games with a sell off at the TDL. I have zero issue having 1 rookie getting a full time spot on D or having a decent set of goalies. Demoralizing your young players and not playing competetive hockey is how you become the Yotes and Oilers. If the Wings planned to full tank it was when Lids first retired and we had almost no youth.

Now am I good selling Howie, Nyquist, any other vet at the deadline for a decent return absolutely, because I don't think we are quite a playoff team yet. Tank 10-15 games, sure why not. 82 though is terrible for a team.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Age is a consideration because these guys are only declining. The glut of vets are dragging the play of Larkin, Bertuzzi, etc. down and it can be frustrating. TZE has had some nice things to say about Nielsen which I try to consider, but man is he a passenger. Reminds me of Danny Glover's character in Lethal Weapon, dude just want's to retire safely and cash his last checks. Abdelkader is a shell of the individual we saw from 2010-14 and it sucks. Most of our perspective is a matter of opinion. There's times I find the Wings infuriating and it has nothing to do with the score or results.

Sorry to rehash the same complaint but Holland chose to depend on 2 or 3 vets too many for my taste. I can see rewarding Helm because his name is inscribed on the Cup but a lot of the others...no thanks. It's my hope, which is easy to imagine, that Yzerman will have NO allegiance to the lot Holland has assembled. In 2 years some of our dead weight will be off the books but honestly I welcome a full house cleaning.

I prefer this type of team to one that has Larkin, Bertuzzi etc. dragged down by career AHLers, waiver pickups or rookies that aren't NHL ready. We have some not so great veterans but for the most part they are doing an okay job supporting the actual talent that's emerging. The team is playing some decently competitive hockey but will probably still end up with a very high pick, which is alright by me. If we had let some amazing young talent go in favor of signing these veterans I'd have a bigger problem with their presence.

 

[pz29]

There's just no such thing.

No player intentionally loses ever. Why? Because:

1. They're all intensely competitive. How can you not be when you're in the top 0.00001% of your sport?
2. They've got millions of dollars on the line. What player is going to phone it in when it could mean the difference between a $3Mx5 or a $6Mx7 contract? No one. And especially not because the GM comes up to you and says "look we're trying to tank here, don't play so hard okay?" Hell no.

No coach intentionally loses for the same reasons. Coaches get fired all the time. They wanna keep coaching? They need to coach in such a way where they can get hired again. You don't do that by intentionally throwing games.

GMs might be the only person in a franchise capable of and willing to lose intentionally. But that almost never happens either. Or if it does, it is nearly indistinguishable from rebuilding. Because the things you do to tank are the same things you do to rebuild. You trade away veterans and players who need a "change of scenery" in exchange for picks and prospects to reload in the next few drafts. Whether you're tanking or rebuilding it's the same process.

well, than it is not a "tank" but just "not being very good." To me a "tank" implies intentionality, and by how many people people here promote a "tank" tells me that some of us here are perfectly OK with losing as many games as possible. I am not OK with that. I want to see a competitive product on the ice/court/field/whatever.

 

[Flowah]

I want to see a competitive product on the ice/court/field/whatever.

Would you trade our 1st and 2nd rounders for the next 5 years to get good players who could drag us kicking and screaming into the playoffs?

Would you rather 5 first round exits or 1 deep run?

Do you define competitive as "makes the playoffs" or more than that?

Do you prioritize making the playoffs now but going nowhere, over long term health of the club?

There are tradeoffs to be made. Pro-tank people are people who don't like seeing first round exits over and over again. We want to see a team that has a reasonable chance at going at least to the conference finals. Ask St. Louis fans which they'd rather have, their 25 year playoff streak or 1 single Stanley cup. I bet most of them would rather have a cup.

 

[ChrisReevesLegs]

Would you trade our 1st and 2nd rounders for the next 5 years to get good players who could drag us kicking and screaming into the playoffs?

Would you rather 5 first round exits or 1 deep run?

Do you define competitive as "makes the playoffs" or more than that?

Do you prioritize making the playoffs now but going nowhere, over long term health of the club?

There are tradeoffs to be made. Pro-tank people are people who don't like seeing first round exits over and over again. We want to see a team that has a reasonable chance at going at least to the conference finals. Ask St. Louis fans which they'd rather have, their 25 year playoff streak or 1 single Stanley cup. I bet most of them would rather have a cup.

Nah, I don't buy into the whole soyboy "losing is good" pinko BS

For every example of a team tanking... then getting good players... then going on to win the cup, there are an equal number of examples of teams tanking... destroying the reputation and culture of their lockeroom... then continuing to endlessly suffer, only worse now.

This is not a one-or-the-other situation where the options are only: completely tank, or go all in. It's a mix. And I personally come out on the side of having dignity and continually pushing forward to win and compete. Sure you trade Tatar when you know you're not going to make the playoffs... but you also try to replace his scoring with Vanek as soon as you can.

Losing is for losers.