Crunching the Numbers: Why Re-Building is Harder than Ever

[StargateSG1]

Yeah, I see a problem with people freaking out over the word playoffs all the while claiming the team will finish bottom 3. Then citing mid first round picks as purgatory, even though the logic follows that we'll be picking pretty high. You still haven't explained how you bridge those two opposing points of view without using examples of things that happened BEFORE we missed the playoffs, because what has happened SINCE we missed the playoffs has been the opposite. The bolded part describes a tanking team, so there's also that.

Nothing changed "since we missed the playoffs",
he still didn't trade a single roster player that wasn't a UFA, and he still went out an signed an aging Defencemen and the bottom 6 forward in free agency.

Looks like BAU to me, while being delusional enough to believe this roster is actually playoffs bound.

 

[Frk It]

We are drafting skilled players. You're saying, draft ONLY guys who are defined solely as skill guys and have zero business in a bottom 6/3rd pair role? That's an idea, but I personally don't buy into the idea that Hronek/Saarijarvi for example have much higher ceilings than Lindstrom/Kotkansalo. Or that Rasmussen has no skill just because he has tools to play a game that isn't based on dangling and flash. Our late round forward picks can be discussed but we've clearly focused on D lately. During Wright's tenure, we've made 4 forward picks in the first 2 rounds: Larkin/Svechnikov/Smith/Rasmussen. Doesn't look like a bad group of players to me. What do we really expect in terms of forward talent in rounds 3 and beyond?

No, not every single pick. Maybe I'm focusing too much on this last draft. I loved the Mantha and Svechnikov picks. Those are skilled guys. Based on getting guys like Svechnikov and Mantha at 19-20, I expected more this year.

I see a lot of guys who can ride shotgun with Zetterberg and produce, but we all know Z has limited time. I like Larkin a lot, but I think he has something like 19 assists in his last 110 games played. I'm hoping Rasmussen has untapped playmaking ability, but he had 3 primary assists at even strength in 50 games last year.

I'm not sure who we think is going to set up these wingers. I think Nick Suzuki is a riskier pick, but I think if he puts it together you are looking at something like Claude Giroux. I'm not too scared of whiffing completely at this point because we're already bad, and I won't feel much better about another 40-50 pt passenger that doesn't drive the play.

Our Director of Amateur Scouting saying we're going for riskier guys next year, kind of makes me feel like that is in response to not doing that as much this year. And hearing him talk about our guys this year with the words "size and character" instead of "skill" and "creativity" doesn't really do much for me. But he's maybe just not the best with words. I mean going back and looking at the Larkin pick, the initial reaction was pretty mild, but when he brought up Helm that really kicked up a **** storm.

 

[Flowah]

You also have to account for the decline in ticket sales after Thanksgiving when the team flames out vs. higher regular season ticket sales if the team's playoffs start in
December where every point matters.

It's not black and white like the picture people are trying to paint.

Do you really think ticket sales are noticeably worse whether we're 3rd to last or 6th to last like we were last year?

At a certain point, awful is awful and it's not affecting people's decisions to come to the games.

Fair enough, even though I disagree that #9 is a mid first. I also don't see why we can't get a lottery pick as one of the bottom teams (bottom 3 as per the quotes). That should automatically dismiss any fear of "trying to make the playoffs". The actions so far should also not point to that being the case. But I guess we'll agree to disagree on that.

To me, depth signings and guys like Daley point to "trying" to make the playoffs to some degree. Or at least hedging your bets. Go all in on the kids. It's not like we lack for GR defensemen.

And #9 certainly isn't a high pick. It's not a low pick. Seems pretty mid to me.

 

[BinCookin]

Why are we still taking anything Holland, or any GM says publicly, at face value?

that is pretty much my point

 

[Red Stanley]

Nothing changed "since we missed the playoffs",
he still didn't trade a single roster player that wasn't a UFA, and he still went out an signed an aging Defencemen and the bottom 6 forward in free agency.

Looks like BAU to me, while being delusional enough to believe this roster is actually playoffs bound.

OK. As simplistic, emotionally-driven and factually-incorrect as I find it, it is an answer. Thank you.

 

[StargateSG1]

OK. As simplistic, emotionally-driven and factually-incorrect as I find it, it is an answer. Thank you.

I got news for you, "simplistic" is buying what Kenny has been selling to the gullible.

 

[Red Stanley]

I got news for you, "simplistic" is buying what Kenny has been selling to the gullible.

Some people's reading and listening comprehension goes beyond "blah blah blah we're gonna try to make the playoffs blah blah blah". They might even compare what's being said to what's actually happening in order to form a more accurate depiction of reality, one in which not every single outcome leads to the conclusion that Ken Holland sucks.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Some people's reading and listening comprehension goes beyond "blah blah blah we're gonna try to make the playoffs blah blah blah". They might even compare what's being said to what's actually happening in order to form a more accurate depiction of reality, one in which not every single outcome leads to the conclusion that Ken Holland sucks.

I think the extent some go to in trashing a man that has given our favorite team 30 pretty phenomenal years of work is embarrassing. Still it is time to question with his contract up at the end of the season if we cannot find a different roll than him. He hasn't been able to execute his plan here lately, he should probably transition to another role.

That being said the vitriol half our fan-base is treating him with these days deserves a Lions esk Bobby Lane leaving statement out of Kenny while he accepts the job running the Canucks and we watch the team stink for half a century.

He deserves the next year, but he very much needs a better plan right now. We need something more, if not I think he should be in a Jimmy D type role. If he doesn't want that then I thank him for the wonderful ride, I look forward to his HHOF induction but we need solutions here and a plan. It might be that he has a hammer grip on the press in Detroit, but I am not seeing enough to not be worried moving forward. I really thought he was going to do a heck of a lot more in the last 12-24 months than he has done and it has left me very concerned and ultimately willing to move on despite my admiration for Holland.

 

[Frk It]

I think the extent some go to in trashing a man that has given our favorite team 30 pretty phenomenal years of work is embarrassing. Still it is time to question with his contract up at the end of the season if we cannot find a different roll than him. He hasn't been able to execute his plan here lately, he should probably transition to another role.

That being said the vitriol half our fan-base is treating him with these days deserves a Lions esk Bobby Lane leaving statement out of Kenny while he accepts the job running the Canucks and we watch the team stink for half a century.

He deserves the next year, but he very much needs a better plan right now. We need something more, if not I think he should be in a Jimmy D type role. If he doesn't want that then I thank him for the wonderful ride, I look forward to his HHOF induction but we need solutions here and a plan. It might be that he has a hammer grip on the press in Detroit, but I am not seeing enough to not be worried moving forward. I really thought he was going to do a heck of a lot more in the last 12-24 months than he has done and it has left me very concerned and ultimately willing to move on despite my admiration for Holland.

Half a century? Having the Lions in town has you guys that jaded, huh?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Half a century? Having the Lions in town has you guys that jaded, huh?

The Lions have actually been worse longer than a half century.

Having the worst pro sports franchise in NA professional sports is something we can claim in my opinion about the Detroit Lions.

 

[Bench]

The Lions have actually been worse longer than a half century.

Having the worst pro sports franchise in NA professional sports is something we can claim in my opinion about the Detroit Lions.

I feel like I'm in a bizarro world where the Lions would be my top Detroit pick to win a championship. That hasn't been true my entire life.

 

[Red Stanley]

I think the extent some go to in trashing a man that has given our favorite team 30 pretty phenomenal years of work is embarrassing. Still it is time to question with his contract up at the end of the season if we cannot find a different roll than him. He hasn't been able to execute his plan here lately, he should probably transition to another role.

That being said the vitriol half our fan-base is treating him with these days deserves a Lions esk Bobby Lane leaving statement out of Kenny while he accepts the job running the Canucks and we watch the team stink for half a century.

He deserves the next year, but he very much needs a better plan right now. We need something more, if not I think he should be in a Jimmy D type role. If he doesn't want that then I thank him for the wonderful ride, I look forward to his HHOF induction but we need solutions here and a plan. It might be that he has a hammer grip on the press in Detroit, but I am not seeing enough to not be worried moving forward. I really thought he was going to do a heck of a lot more in the last 12-24 months than he has done and it has left me very concerned and ultimately willing to move on despite my admiration for Holland.

I'm curious to see if/how he adapts to the new situation. One more year should be plenty to show that. I wish we could discuss the possibilities more instead of dismissing them with supposed forgone conclusions. Holland royally screwing up the opportunity to rebuild is just one of those possibilities, not the only one.

 

[Winger98]

I'm curious to see if/how he adapts to the new situation. One more year should be plenty to show that. I wish we could discuss the possibilities more instead of dismissing them with supposed forgone conclusions. Holland royally screwing up the opportunity to rebuild is just one of those possibilities, not the only one.

His moves this summer points toward the answer being no. If he was really adapting to where the Wings are and likely heading, he'd realize that signing Daley to three years does nothing for us. He wouldn't be flirting with Vanek. He'd be signing Tatar to a long term deal while trimming guys (pick any of the handful) off the roster who really don't belong on it.

Holland's always been largely a reactionary GM, though. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but his first reaction is almost always towards the most immediate reward with whatever move he makes.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

If he was really adapting to where the Wings are and likely heading, he'd realize that signing Daley to three years does nothing for us. He wouldn't be flirting with Vanek. He'd be signing Tatar to a long term deal while trimming guys (pick any of the handful) off the roster who really don't belong on it.

Tatar needs to be traded, not extended.

 

[BinCookin]

His moves this summer points toward the answer being no. If he was really adapting to where the Wings are and likely heading, he'd realize that signing Daley to three years does nothing for us. He wouldn't be flirting with Vanek. He'd be signing Tatar to a long term deal while trimming guys (pick any of the handful) off the roster who really don't belong on it.

Holland's always been largely a reactionary GM, though. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but his first reaction is almost always towards the most immediate reward with whatever move he makes.

If you listen closely to that long interview he gave... it was clear to me he was very unlikely to sign Vanek.

IMO if he did to a 1 yr deal, that would be again for the purpose of "siggning a draft pick" (to be acquired at the deadline).

Sounded to me like he was leaving spots open for kids.

As for Daley... I get the very strong impression that Kronwall/Ericsson are gettingg pretty close to retirement.

Green - Daley
Ericsson//Kronwall - Dekeyser
XO - Jensen
Sproul.

Looks fine to me if you assume one of kronwall/Ericsson is likely to be missing a lot of games.

Also its always wise to have SOME veterans around for development purposes when people come to the NHL.

I like to think Zetterberg was helpful to tatar and nyquist, and can be with Mantha and Larkin.

If we trade away Green (not sign Daley), and kronwall/ericsson are too injured to play right... then our best vet is Dekeyser? not exactly a lot of help for saarijarvi/cholowski/hronek...

If we trade away tatar/nyquist/Zetterberg/Nielsen/Helm/Abdelkader...

Sheahan becomes the man who trains Mantha/Larkin/Svech/Rasmussen...

I mean if you strip every decent player off the team, i would argue our young kids will "neveer learn how to be a pro"....

kinda like what is happening in Edmonton (a few years ago), and Colorado now.


Now dont get me wrong, i think we need to trade off a few forwards... but i dont see Daley signing as a huge deal. I see him as a player who can be an asset to trade 2 years from now, and someone who is best for training our new kids. Especially if Green is traded this year.

 

[Henkka]

Give me Al Murray.

It feels like always been like him.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I'm curious to see if/how he adapts to the new situation. One more year should be plenty to show that. I wish we could discuss the possibilities more instead of dismissing them with supposed forgone conclusions. Holland royally screwing up the opportunity to rebuild is just one of those possibilities, not the only one.

His handling of the expansion draft and what he has done to date hasn't inspired much confidence.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

I feel like I'm in a bizarro world where the Lions would be my top Detroit pick to win a championship. That hasn't been true my entire life.

That is truly bananas, the 5 year forecast of all the Detroit teams definitely sees the Lions with the path of least resistance.

 

[Pavels Dog]

His handling of the expansion draft and what he has done to date hasn't inspired much confidence.

One of the GMs who lost the least value in expansion (also managed to send a message to a kid who sorely needed a wakeup call), along with landing 11 picks in '17 and already has 9 picks in '18.

Early draft results of the last few years also look promising even if people are already counting out '17 as a failure. Not sure what you're looking for considering a scorched earth approach can only come from ownership. A new GM likely doesn't go that way either, though he could change to a Toronto approach where we trade two 1sts for a Kessel instead of staying patient.

 

[Winger98]

Tatar needs to be traded, not extended.

I think there are several other players we should/need to move before looking to move Tatar.

If you listen closely to that long interview he gave... it was clear to me he was very unlikely to sign Vanek.

IMO if he did to a 1 yr deal, that would be again for the purpose of "siggning a draft pick" (to be acquired at the deadline).

Sounded to me like he was leaving spots open for kids.

As for Daley... I get the very strong impression that Kronwall/Ericsson are gettingg pretty close to retirement.

Green - Daley
Ericsson//Kronwall - Dekeyser
XO - Jensen
Sproul.

Looks fine to me if you assume one of kronwall/Ericsson is likely to be missing a lot of games.

Also its always wise to have SOME veterans around for development purposes when people come to the NHL.

I like to think Zetterberg was helpful to tatar and nyquist, and can be with Mantha and Larkin.

If we trade away Green (not sign Daley), and kronwall/ericsson are too injured to play right... then our best vet is Dekeyser? not exactly a lot of help for saarijarvi/cholowski/hronek...

If we trade away tatar/nyquist/Zetterberg/Nielsen/Helm/Abdelkader...

Sheahan becomes the man who trains Mantha/Larkin/Svech/Rasmussen...

I mean if you strip every decent player off the team, i would argue our young kids will "neveer learn how to be a pro"....

kinda like what is happening in Edmonton (a few years ago), and Colorado now.


Now dont get me wrong, i think we need to trade off a few forwards... but i dont see Daley signing as a huge deal. I see him as a player who can be an asset to trade 2 years from now, and someone who is best for training our new kids. Especially if Green is traded this year.

My impression is that we don't have cap space to make any significant addition up front, even one as small as Vanek. Holland has made overtures towards the kids having a spot to make the team every year for...years. And then he signs a Vanek or whatever every summer. Unless he doesn't have cap space to do it.

This is what I've been saying, though - don't trade away Green. If you want someone for the kids to learn from, to shoulder more of the load from them, etc., you want those guys to be legitimately good players. That's not Daley. Daley is a modern Jason Wooley.

But signing Daley to that deal will make it much harder to re-sign Green (or sign another good D, should one become available) because of cap space. Right now we have around $19m in cap space for next summer, but that doesn't include AA, Larkin, Mantha, and Mrazek (and Tatar, but hey). And Green.

If Holland was desperate for another vet D, he should have waited and just grabbed someone for a year as the summer winds down and guys get desperate for a job.

 

[jkutswings]

One of the GMs who lost the least value in expansion (also managed to send a message to a kid who sorely needed a wakeup call), along with landing 11 picks in '17 and already has 9 picks in '18.

Early draft results of the last few years also look promising even if people are already counting out '17 as a failure. Not sure what you're looking for considering a scorched earth approach can only come from ownership. A new GM likely doesn't go that way either, though he could change to a Toronto approach where we trade two 1sts for a Kessel instead of staying patient.

On the one hand, you say all these prospects look great.
On the other, you say it's smart to sign Daley to give the kids time to grow.

If any of our prospects truly looked great, they'd be knocking down the door to force their way into the lineup, and a Daley wouldn't be needed. But they're all long-term projects that are TBD. Thus far, there's been nothing whatsoever that we haven't already heard about how Kindl or Sproul or a handful of others were going to be the shot in the arm that the team so desperately needed.

I have zero faith in this regime to draft an impact player anywhere beneath the top 2-3 spots in the first round - let alone have anything resembling shrewd player evaluation once they're here - and the sooner they're gone, the better.

 

[Pavels Dog]

On the one hand, you say all these prospects look great.
On the other, you say it's smart to sign Daley to give the kids time to grow.

If any of our prospects truly looked great, they'd be knocking down the door to force their way into the lineup, and a Daley wouldn't be needed.

Needing 2-3 years of development time is pretty standard outside the top 10-15 of the draft, especially for d-men. Some great players need even more time. I mean Hronek/Saarijarvi/Cholo could start knocking on the door soon. Lindstrom/Kotkansalo could follow shortly. A Dahlin or some other top 10 drafted D could be ready in 1-2 years from now. You can't fastforward development time though.

 

[njx9]

Jurco, Saarijarvi, Tatar, Nyquist, Pulkkinen, Frk, Hronek, Mrazek, Mantha, Melen, Almqvist, Sproul, Cholowski, Setkov, Athanasiou... the list goes on.

So assuming the organization agrees that none of those guys were taken as "we're pretty sure he'll never be a star, but he'll make the show"; one "boom"? Then that credits the argument that the scouting is poor.

Wings just don't get credit for boom/bust picks when they bust or turn into pretty good players, which is what 99% of boom/bust types do. Sure we could draft a whole bunch of Johnny Gaudreau prospects, but you'd need to consider that it's a strategy that can lead to almost zero NHLers being produced and a team where the top 5-10 picks barely have anything of value surrounding them, leading to a rebuild that doesn't lead anywhere for a looooong time. Prospects can have "boom" to them even if they don't start out as complete longshots to even make the show.

And Mantha is the only one with any appreciable degree of upside right now (of the ones you listed). Producing a bunch of 3rd and 4th line guys is great when you have the top end talent already in place. The Wings have, typically, done an exceptional job at it. But just getting guys who 'make it' isn't going to move the team forward. That's the entire argument.

Simple man... You are saying:

"Detroit needs to stop taking "safe" picks"...

our response is:

No they are not, and please define what a safe pick is... because if you cant do it... im suggesting no one can.

Rasmussen could be a homerun pick, no one has any idea at this point.

Again, maybe the team is looking at all of these guys with 1st line player, or top pairing hopes. All I'm saying is that if they're taking a guy who's likely to be a 6D over a guy who might be a 1D, then I disagree with their drafting strategy. My thoughts on Rasmussen aren't really relevant - as long as the Wings think he can actually be a 1C, then he was a great pick (IMO). If they think he's a lock to be a 3C, and they passed on Vilardi because he only 'might' be a 1C, then it was a terrible pick and I intensely disagree with it.

I think the team should always prioritize guys with the higher ceiling - so if they thought Liljegren could be a 1D, he should've been the pick, even with a steep downside. If they thought Cholowski had a better shot at 1D than Chychrun (or Fabbro, I guess), then they made the right decision. Given the last 20 years of Red Wings drafting, it's difficult to believe that that's the case, however.

 

[Frk It]

I think there are several other players we should/need to move before looking to move Tatar.

This is what I've been saying, though - don't trade away Green. If you want someone for the kids to learn from, to shoulder more of the load from them, etc., you want those guys to be legitimately good players. That's not Daley. Daley is a modern Jason Wooley.

I guess it depends what you think we need. If you think we need another 1st rounder, then you trade Tatar or Green. Those are the only guys outside of Mantha/Larkin that are possibly returning a 1st on this team. Maybe Nyquist if he has a big year. That's about it. I think Vegas passing on Helm, XO, and Jensen, and several guys not getting taken on waivers like Pulkkinen, Marchenko, etc. shows that we overvalue our guys a decent amount.

 

[BinCookin]

All I'm saying is that if they're taking a guy who's likely to be a 6D over a guy who might be a 1D, then I disagree with their drafting strategy.

I dont think any teeam is using first round picks on players they think will be 6D or 12th forwards.. thats a weird way of looking at it.

All teams pick a player they like, and a player they think has a much higher upside than maybe some other scouts.

Assuming our draftingg strategy is the opposite i think is a very weird perspective. Has any GM ever said "we think this prospect (in 1st round) is very low ceiling?"

Also really complaining about our last 10-15 years of draft picks is very unfair overall, as we have had the worst set of first overall picks of any team of the last 20 years. (best pick is Larkin at 15...)

Now is the time we start seeing our abilities to take really talented players.