News Article: Chris Ilitch noncommittal on Holland’s return

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
We are sitting on a pile of picks. Probably the first top 5 or 6 pick in 20+ years. We finally have succumbed to re-building being the biggest focus and aren’t talking about making the playoffs.

So not everything sucks. I’d like to draft a few more skilled guys and be more active in the trade market, but we are at least taking steps in the right direction.


We didn't make the playoffs last year either.
Yet we spent the entire offseason and the first 50-55 games of the season acting like we were a playoff team and talking about winning culture and why it's important to keep guys like Abdelkader around.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,930
15,056
Sweden
I'm not sure how a GM trying to avoid a rebuild, but failing, is somehow better than a GM deciding it's time to rebuild a few years sooner, and sacrificing a first round exit or two, in exchange for better draft stock (and, in hindsight, better cap flexibility) to jumpstart the rebuilding process.
Zero GMs have ever decided to rebuild while in a playoff position. The one time (one.) Holland made a trade that could be seen as actively trying to preserve a playoff streak, we made the playoffs and drafted Larkin, a player that is a consensus top 10 pick in a re-draft, possibly top 5. Tell me, not trading Jarnkrok and drafting 12-14th, what's the gain? The next year we had 100 points without Holland making any real moves to improve the roster, showing that there was real potential in that roster and they would have been much better in '14 as well if not for massive, massive injuries.

Anyone who thinks making the playoffs happened due to signing Cleary/Samuelsson/Bertuzzi/Weiss/etc is off their rocker. Those were bad moves that, if anything, stopped us from doing more damage and being less of a bubble team. Criticizing those moves is absolutely fair.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,042
11,737
Players getting old+salary cap. Call it natural decline if you will. Much like what's happening with Chicago. Did that GM completely mess up? Sure the Toews contract is bad, and Panarin trade doesn't look so hot. But more than anything it's just what happens when your top pairing gets old and declines. They're losing Keith and Seabrook like we lost Lidstrom and Rafalski. Only we had Kronwall ready to step up, they have... Forsling? So they're seeing a bit more drastic of a decline.

I just don't buy into the idea that the only way a team can ever have bad years is if the GM is a moron. Players decline, players retire, there's a natural ebb and flow to it. We completely skipped about ~5 years of rebuilding from 02-07 by having a generational D-man that bridged the gap and absolutely insane, out of this world, never gonna happen again drafting.
Couple issues with this entire line of logic. For starters you are seeming to imply there are only two ways to get to the bottom, which I am not sure you actually believe.

Second, a rebuild can be "organic" while also facilitating the next step in the rebuild. We are not talking about trading Zetterberg or Datsyuk right after Lidstrom retired. There are maybe one or two people who think that. This constant argument against the most hyperbolic of Holland criticisms makes for a disingenuous discussion on your part. The issues with Holland come down to the many little things which indicate a "win-now" mode with a team that does not have the capacity to "win-now" but is good enough to at least make the playoffs. The consistent decline is a result of the problematic moves Holland has made, as well as the fact the team has not had the type of picks which restock the cupboard with all-star talent. It can be both.

Chicago is both a victim of the new contracts for franchise players (10 million is going to become the norm for late 20s stars who are invaluable to their franchise) and of making moves which were only in the interests of "bringing back the boys for another run", which Bowman should absolutely be criticized for. Again, it can be both.

I never believed Holland could absolutely keep the team competitive forever. It isn't really possible for more than two "cycles" of players. I think the majority were in the same boat, and Holland should be judged on how he was able to make the transition. Many think he overextended the "mediocre" stage which led to us prolonging this point. His signings were testamount to him wanting to get back into a competitive edge, spending to the cap and making trades for older veterans because "anything can happen". That isn't a good mindset to have if you know the time to rebuild has begun.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Zero GMs have ever decided to rebuild while in a playoff position. The one time (one.) Holland made a trade that could be seen as actively trying to preserve a playoff streak, we made the playoffs and drafted Larkin, a player that is a consensus top 10 pick in a re-draft, possibly top 5. Tell me, not trading Jarnkrok and drafting 12-14th, what's the gain? The next year we had 100 points without Holland making any real moves to improve the roster, showing that there was real potential in that roster and they would have been much better in '14 as well if not for massive, massive injuries.

Anyone who thinks making the playoffs happened due to signing Cleary/Samuelsson/Bertuzzi/Weiss/etc is off their rocker. Those were bad moves that, if anything, stopped us from doing more damage and being less of a bubble team. Criticizing those moves is absolutely fair.

Where were the NY Rangers when they announced they were rebuilding?
They were three points out of the playoffs.

Janrkrok - if he's still here, is a guy who fits in our top 9. We dont' need Frans Nielsen if we don't trade Janrkrok.
So you've saved yourself considerable cap space over a really long term.

Legwand in Detroit
21 games 4-7-11 -9
Playoffs
5 games 0-0-0

Jarnkrok in Nashville
316 games 56-67-123 +20
Playoffs
41 games 2-8-10

Eaves in Nashville
5 games 0-0-0
Eaves since leaving Nasvhille
182 games 58-38-96 +5

Preds traded their draft pick to moved down 5 picks (Jack Daughery) and a 2015 4th rounder (Anthony Richard).

As you praise Holland for acquiring draft picks with one side of your mouth, remember what you say with the other.

I'm all for getting draft picks at this point.
But I don't think this front office is the team to get it done for Detroit.

Hopefully Holland leaves and takes Tyler Wright and Ryan Martin with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkutswings

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,930
15,056
Sweden
Couple issues with this entire line of logic. For starters you are seeming to imply there are only two ways to get to the bottom, which I am not sure you actually believe.

Second, a rebuild can be "organic" while also facilitating the next step in the rebuild. We are not talking about trading Zetterberg or Datsyuk right after Lidstrom retired. There are maybe one or two people who think that. This constant argument against the most hyperbolic of Holland criticisms makes for a disingenuous discussion on your part. The issues with Holland come down to the many little things which indicate a "win-now" mode with a team that does not have the capacity to "win-now" but is good enough to at least make the playoffs. The consistent decline is a result of the problematic moves Holland has made, as well as the fact the team has not had the type of picks which restock the cupboard with all-star talent. It can be both.

Chicago is both a victim of the new contracts for franchise players (10 million is going to become the norm for late 20s stars who are invaluable to their franchise) and of making moves which were only in the interests of "bringing back the boys for another run", which Bowman should absolutely be criticized for. Again, it can be both.

I never believed Holland could absolutely keep the team competitive forever. It isn't really possible for more than two "cycles" of players. I think the majority were in the same boat, and Holland should be judged on how he was able to make the transition. Many think he overextended the "mediocre" stage which led to us prolonging this point. His signings were testamount to him wanting to get back into a competitive edge, spending to the cap and making trades for older veterans because "anything can happen". That isn't a good mindset to have if you know the time to rebuild has begun.
The bolded is what I simply can not agree with. The last "big" win-now move came in 2012 when he traded a 1st round pick. Fact is most teams would drop to the bottom of the standings if they lost their entire top pairing in the span of about 1 year. We were not most teams. We had Dats and Z, we had Kronwall, we had Howard, we had Babcock. Somehow we carried on due to them. Most teams drop to the bottom of the standings if they lose their only two superstars for half the season. We were not most teams. Somehow Nyquist stepped up and outscored every single player in the league for a couple of months.
Most teams drop to the bottom of the standings if they lose their only superstar to Russia while their 2nd and 3rd best players (Z and Kronner) drastically decline and they make a huge coaching downgrade. Somehow, Petr Mrazek played like a Vezina candidate and Dylan Larkin burst into the NHL looking like a future star and we still made the playoffs.

Last year, things eventually became too much for us to overcome and we dropped down the standings. But I can not blame Holland for it not happening sooner. Maybe it was the "winning culture", somehow this team just refused to miss the playoffs for the longest time. And it had very little to do with any "win now" moves. Holland would have literally needed to make "lose now" moves instead to drag this team down earlier. But I don't know if even that would have worked. Probably someone would have randomly stepped up even more and still gotten us into the 1st round.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Third most expensive roster (or 9th based on cap space), but why let facts get in the way of an argument.

Different times of the year we ranked differently.

The broader point is that we had to trade a youngish $2M center to make room for a $1.3M center.

If you think that's good asset management for a cruddy, old expensive team, I don't know what to tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,042
11,737
The bolded is what I simply can not agree with. The last "big" win-now move came in 2012 when he traded a 1st round pick. Fact is most teams would drop to the bottom of the standings if they lost their entire top pairing in the span of about 1 year. We were not most teams. We had Dats and Z, we had Kronwall, we had Howard, we had Babcock. Somehow we carried on due to them. Most teams drop to the bottom of the standings if they lose their only two superstars for half the season. We were not most teams. Somehow Nyquist stepped up and outscored every single player in the league for a couple of months.
Most teams drop to the bottom of the standings if they lose their only superstar to Russia while their 2nd and 3rd best players (Z and Kronner) drastically decline and they make a huge coaching downgrade. Somehow, Petr Mrazek played like a Vezina candidate and Dylan Larkin burst into the NHL looking like a future star and we still made the playoffs.

Last year, things eventually became too much for us to overcome and we dropped down the standings. But I can not blame Holland for it not happening sooner. Maybe it was the "winning culture", somehow this team just refused to miss the playoffs for the longest time. And it had very little to do with any "win now" moves. Holland would have literally needed to make "lose now" moves instead to drag this team down earlier. But I don't know if even that would have worked. Probably someone would have randomly stepped up even more and still gotten us into the 1st round.
It doesn't have to be "big" to indicate the mindset of the GM. Small moves are not always insignificant and can add up to a harder job once you actually do try to get to the rebuilding process.

The Red Wings being good enough to not be a bottom feeder despite losing Lidstrom and Rafalski speaks to what argument? It wasn't like Holland was ready to start the rebuild. It wasn't like he was making the same comments he has been making lately. So what point is to be made by bringing up the fact we also had other good players who kept the team "just good enough" not to commit to a rebuild?
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Different times of the year we ranked differently.

The broader point is that we had to trade a youngish $2M center to make room for a $1.3M center.

If you think that's good asset management for a cruddy, old expensive team, I don't know what to tell you.

Nope. I didnt say that. I dont like it when people use false facts to prove their narrative. Pro Holland, Anti Holland, it doesn't matter.
When a person says "we are the most expensive roster" the implication is in the present, that is untrue.

I'm sick of hyperbole from certain people to prove their points, if you take that as me thinking "it's good asset management for a cruddy, old expensive team" I dont know what to tell you.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,930
15,056
Sweden
Where were the NY Rangers when they announced they were rebuilding?
They were three points out of the playoffs.
How many times before 2016 were we 3 points out of the playoffs? It also wasn't like they were trending the right way or being right in the thick of it, they were getting worse and worse with zero signs of improvement.

It doesn't have to be "big" to indicate the mindset of the GM. Small moves are not always insignificant and can add up to a harder job once you actually do try to get to the rebuilding process.

The Red Wings being good enough to not be a bottom feeder despite losing Lidstrom and Rafalski speaks to what argument? It wasn't like Holland was ready to start the rebuild. It wasn't like he was making the same comments he has been making lately. So what point is to be made by bringing up the fact we also had other good players who kept the team "just good enough" not to commit to a rebuild?
The point is that GMs simply don't commit to rebuilding in earnest while the team is making the playoffs and still has a core of players that have been on deep runs and even won cups.
If we had a core that had never gone deep in the playoffs (ala Washington) or never won the ultimate prize (ala NYR) you may pull the trigger on rebuilding a little faster if things are going south. But if you truly analyze each season for what it actually was, you see there's not really much room for a GM to step up and say "hey, you know what... I'm gonna pull the plug here".
It's really f'in easy to look back and say "boy I wish the rebuild had started 5 years ago so it would be almost over now". In reality you're always going to feel like that, it's easier to imagine that the bad years could have been behind you already. But what typically happens is that a team falls down the standings on it's own, and THEN the GM analyzes the roster and either says "hm, this was just a bad year, let's try it again next year" or "yeah, this team is done. time to rebuild". We didn't fall down the standings until last year. Asking for a legit rebuild to start at an earlier point is pretty much asking for an unprecedented event in sports.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,042
11,737
Whether GMs "do it" or not doesn't at all demonstrate whether or not GMs should.

Not to mention small incremental changes to facilitate the change to a rebuild doesn't mean blowing it all up. Are you saying it is impossible to focus on the future instead of the now while also being competitive?

Also, we didn't fall down the standings until last year? The team has fallen in the standings numerous times since 2009. Are you meaning missing the playoffs?
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Different times of the year we ranked differently.

The broader point is that we had to trade a youngish $2M center to make room for a $1.3M center.

If you think that's good asset management for a cruddy, old expensive team, I don't know what to tell you.

If AA would have signed for 1.3 and we knew that? We wouldn’t have had to do anything with Sheehan. And also... Sheehan has regressed something fierce. You can complain about losing a youngish center, but the reality is we lost a mid-20s bottom six player who flipped between center and wing and just got done with a 15 point season? For someone who complains about Glendening a bunch, you’re sure being kind to a guy who he completely outplayed who makes less AAV than Sheehan did.

The trade off was Sheahan for a third and the cap space to sign AA if he wanted more than a one year deal.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
11,070
8,815
Whether GMs "do it" or not doesn't at all demonstrate whether or not GMs should.

Not to mention small incremental changes to facilitate the change to a rebuild doesn't mean blowing it all up. Are you saying it is impossible to focus on the future instead of the now while also being competitive?

Also, we didn't fall down the standings until last year? The team has fallen in the standings numerous times since 2009. Are you meaning missing the playoffs?
So much this. It was not at all hindsight to see that Detroit was no longer among the teams that could do real damage in the playoffs, and that the future held further descent towards the bottom.

If a given person's priorities include just making the playoffs as being ok, then fine, I just agree to disagree with them. But anybody pretending that there weren't noticeable signs of decline, prior to missing the playoffs, is using revisionist history.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
If AA would have signed for 1.3 and we knew that? We wouldn’t have had to do anything with Sheehan. And also... Sheehan has regressed something fierce. You can complain about losing a youngish center, but the reality is we lost a mid-20s bottom six player who flipped between center and wing and just got done with a 15 point season? For someone who complains about Glendening a bunch, you’re sure being kind to a guy who he completely outplayed who makes less AAV than Sheehan did.

The trade off was Sheahan for a third and the cap space to sign AA if he wanted more than a one year deal.

LOL
Excuses. Excuses.
HTTPS9pLm1ha2VhZ2lmLmNvbS9tZWRpYS80LTI5LTIwMTUvWnI1N1lYLmdpZgloglog.gif


One of the jobs of a GM is to understand why someone regresses.
Is it because they're not very good and they were just lucky before, or playing in a situation that made them look better than they were?
Is it because the environment is bad now, making them look worse than they are?

So do you trade them while their value is at it's lowest?

That's another thing a shrewd GM of a rebuilding team does. They're patient. They're no hurry. You trade guys when their value is at its peak.
Not at its lowest.

Trading Jimmy Howard, for example, would have been a fairly good move in November,
But Holland wasn't in "sell mode."
He was in "pretend we're in the playoffs mode."
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,930
15,056
Sweden
Not to mention small incremental changes to facilitate the change to a rebuild doesn't mean blowing it all up.
Small incremental changes like no longer trading 1st round picks? Like being less active at the TDL and then standing pat even while in a playoff spot? Like going from drafting 25-30 to drafting 15-20? Like refusing to trade young talent of any importance?

Also, we didn't fall down the standings until last year? The team has fallen in the standings numerous times since 2009. Are you meaning missing the playoffs?
If you're #1 there's nowhere to go but down.. I wouldn't consider being 3rd in the division "falling down the standings", nor getting 100+ points.

LOL
That's another thing a shrewd GM of a rebuilding team does. They're patient. They're no hurry. You trade guys when their value is at its peak.
This almost never happens.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,259
14,762
Y'all are exerting a lot of energy about a guy who may well no longer be in charge 6, 12, or 24 months from now.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
11,070
8,815
Y'all are exerting a lot of energy about a guy who may well no longer be in charge 6, 12, or 24 months from now.
Just stating how imperative I feel it is to make a change. This draft could be the answer to multiple problems, and I don't want Kenny or Wright anywhere near those picks.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
How many times before 2016 were we 3 points out of the playoffs? It also wasn't like they were trending the right way or being right in the thick of it, they were getting worse and worse with zero signs of improvement.


The point is that GMs simply don't commit to rebuilding in earnest while the team is making the playoffs and still has a core of players that have been on deep runs and even won cups.
If we had a core that had never gone deep in the playoffs (ala Washington) or never won the ultimate prize (ala NYR) you may pull the trigger on rebuilding a little faster if things are going south. But if you truly analyze each season for what it actually was, you see there's not really much room for a GM to step up and say "hey, you know what... I'm gonna pull the plug here".
It's really f'in easy to look back and say "boy I wish the rebuild had started 5 years ago so it would be almost over now". In reality you're always going to feel like that, it's easier to imagine that the bad years could have been behind you already. But what typically happens is that a team falls down the standings on it's own, and THEN the GM analyzes the roster and either says "hm, this was just a bad year, let's try it again next year" or "yeah, this team is done. time to rebuild". We didn't fall down the standings until last year. Asking for a legit rebuild to start at an earlier point is pretty much asking for an unprecedented event in sports.

Right. So in 2011 or 2012, you wouldn't have traded Datsyuk or Zetterberg or Kronwall.

But you still had to have the f***ing common sense to know that you need to introduce CHEAP YOUTH to the lineup if you want have enough cap space to add the kind of piece Datsyuk or Zetterberg and Kronwall needed to get back to contender status.

But that's not what Holland did.
He kept young cheap players in the AHL while signing guys like Samuelsson and Bertuzzi and Modano and Salei etc etc etc etc.

Perhaps he was appeasing a head coach.
I don't know.

But while Chicago tore down and rebuilt and won using unproven, young talent, we were pretending it was 2002 and you could just sign other teams' old and busted franchise players.

By the time 2014-15 came the window was closed and every one knew it.
Holland was going through the motions, pretending he was a going for it, pretending like he was trading for quality assets, but he was still wasting real assets.

You can argue all day about whether Jarnkrok and Backman and Janmark and a first and a second and a third or whatever had any real value.

But right now, would you trade Hronek, Saarijarvi and Petruzelli for Justin Williams, Jason Spezza or Dan Hamhuis?
Why not?

The same reason applies today as it should have at the time.

Those old guys were going to make no difference. And you can tell, because they didn't. Legwand and Cole averaged 1/2 point per game and didn't produce a point in the playoffs.
Quincey was an overpaid, underperforming defenseman who finally had his REAL value realized when he left Holland's warm bosom.

Older, underperforming veterans are what kill franchises in the salary cap world.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,042
11,737
Small incremental changes like no longer trading 1st round picks? Like being less active at the TDL and then standing pat even while in a playoff spot? Like going from drafting 25-30 to drafting 15-20? Like refusing to trade young talent of any importance?
That sounds like a lack of changes than anything. Which is better than going 100% all-in, but there certainly is plenty of wiggle-room to say "this isn't enough and continues the trend of mediocrity". If anything the activity at the deadline shouldn't have decreased, and he should have been more focused on acquiring more futures instead of "not trading them away as often."

If you're #1 there's nowhere to go but down.. I wouldn't consider being 3rd in the division "falling down the standings", nor getting 100+ points.
The team hasn't been #1 since 2008. That's a long time to "not fall down in the standings".

And I think if the team's best is 3rd in the division and you don't really know how you are going to get better without drafting high, then you need to take a hard look at the team and make a hard choice. You are crediting Holland with finally accepting the competitiveness of the team was over when they missed the playoffs, when that was the second easiest moment he could have made that decision (the easiest being this season). That isn't
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Small incremental changes like no longer trading 1st round picks? Like being less active at the TDL and then standing pat even while in a playoff spot? Like going from drafting 25-30 to drafting 15-20? Like refusing to trade young talent of any importance?


If you're #1 there's nowhere to go but down.. I wouldn't consider being 3rd in the division "falling down the standings", nor getting 100+ points.


This almost never happens.

Excuses. Excuses.
 

MikeyDee

Registered User
Dec 29, 2017
285
183
Metro Detroit
Red Wings senior VP talks up Holland, Blashill - Article - TSN

I agree to an extent, but they both have big flaws and I'd like change

One of my co-workers, who is a Red Wings fan saw this article, too. He said: "I don't like what Jimmy D is quoted as saying in this article! Since when does a professional organization play to the players?! I always thought players play for the organization. :mad: No wonder all the veterans who want a free ride come to Detroit!"
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
The bolded is what I simply can not agree with. The last "big" win-now move came in 2012 when he traded a 1st round pick. Fact is most teams would drop to the bottom of the standings if they lost their entire top pairing in the span of about 1 year. We were not most teams. We had Dats and Z, we had Kronwall, we had Howard, we had Babcock. Somehow we carried on due to them. Most teams drop to the bottom of the standings if they lose their only two superstars for half the season. We were not most teams. Somehow Nyquist stepped up and outscored every single player in the league for a couple of months.
Most teams drop to the bottom of the standings if they lose their only superstar to Russia while their 2nd and 3rd best players (Z and Kronner) drastically decline and they make a huge coaching downgrade. Somehow, Petr Mrazek played like a Vezina candidate and Dylan Larkin burst into the NHL looking like a future star and we still made the playoffs.

Last year, things eventually became too much for us to overcome and we dropped down the standings. But I can not blame Holland for it not happening sooner. Maybe it was the "winning culture", somehow this team just refused to miss the playoffs for the longest time. And it had very little to do with any "win now" moves. Holland would have literally needed to make "lose now" moves instead to drag this team down earlier. But I don't know if even that would have worked. Probably someone would have randomly stepped up even more and still gotten us into the 1st round.

they tried to make a big win now move for bouwmeester in 2013.

wings haven't made the playoffs since datsyuk left to russia.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad