Detroit is the worst team 3 on 3 in the last 2 years

[Go Wings]

This team is bad 5-on-5 and bad 4-on-4. Why are you surprised they are also bad 3-on-3?

They shouldn't be dead last in the NHL the last 2 years.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

They shouldn't be dead last in the NHL the last 2 years.

Their blue line is a dumpster fire and Datsyuk retired. The Wings have he least talented roster in the NHL. I think they are performing as expected.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I was referring to Zadina ...the new "Z", which is why I stated: "when he makes the team".

There is only one Z. And it's Zetterberg.

As for the Wings being terrible in 3 on 3, it's sort of pick your poison for Blashill.

Put out the more defensively responsible guys Z, Kronwall, Dekeyser, except they don't have the speed to keep up and are old enough that getting caught on a long shift could end up with the puck in the back of their net. Or go with the young guys with speed and swagger but are also more prone to "poke and pray" moves and blown coverage.

I think you need to put out the young guns and suffer through the mistakes as they learn (because the old guys aren't suddenly gonna get faster), but that's not Blashill's modus operandi.

 

[kliq]

that goal was 4v4, after a PP in OT.

Really? Not saying you are wrong, but where did you confirm that?

 

[kliq]

Their blue line is a dumpster fire and Datsyuk retired. The Wings have he least talented roster in the NHL. I think they are performing as expected.

Yet they haven't performed like the worst team. Are you saying that they are exceeding expectation and playing better then they should? Not like you to compliment the coaching staff like that.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Detroit is a bad team in general. May be the worst this year. Why does this surprise anybody?

 

[muchbetterthanlada]

Really? Not saying you are wrong, but where did you confirm that?

I checked the highlights.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Yet they haven't performed like the worst team. Are you saying that they are exceeding expectation and playing better then they should? Not like you to compliment the coaching staff like that.

Are you really exceeding expectations when you have a bottom 5-8 team while spending the most money in the league?

The Wings entire philosophy the past half decade was "Let's lose enough so we can lose in the first round of the playoffs." That's why they spent so much money. They wanted a team with a very high floor, but a very low ceiling.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Their blue line is a dumpster fire and Datsyuk retired. The Wings have he least talented roster in the NHL. I think they are performing as expected.

Yet we are still over the cap and aren’t a young team.But everyone is so proud of Holland this summer. You don’t get praise for TRYING to correct YOUR mess. We have the most bad unmovable contracts in the entire NHL. All of this factors into why we suck in OT. I’m sure we are just happy to even get to OT so we get that loser’s point.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Yet they haven't performed like the worst team. Are you saying that they are exceeding expectation and playing better then they should? Not like you to compliment the coaching staff like that.

They aren’t the worst team in the nhl talent wise (close)but they are the worst managed team cap wise. To be at the cap and ice a roster like this is inexcusable.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Ain't really surprising considering we play not to lose in OT as appose to playing to win.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

There is only one Z. And it's Zetterberg.

As for the Wings being terrible in 3 on 3, it's sort of pick your poison for Blashill.

Put out the more defensively responsible guys Z, Kronwall, Dekeyser, except they don't have the speed to keep up and are old enough that getting caught on a long shift could end up with the puck in the back of their net. Or go with the young guys with speed and swagger but are also more prone to "poke and pray" moves and blown coverage.

I think you need to put out the young guns and suffer through the mistakes as they learn (because the old guys aren't suddenly gonna get faster), but that's not Blashill's modus operandi.

Given the chart he has tried both which is really the truth. I have seen Blashill turn to the youth and get curb stomped. Now we can want him just to keep going back there, but I am a little tired of the narrative he hasn't tried it. We have lost that way as well when being honest. There is potentially more upside to it as long as you don't subscribe to the developing terrible habits angle. I just think it is a little tired to blame all of it on him. Our struggles in overtime as has been pointed out in this thread with stats is really team wide and it is because we are not a very talented team. You cannot turn chicken **** into chicken salad all the time.

 

[Go Wings]

Their blue line is a dumpster fire and Datsyuk retired. The Wings have he least talented roster in the NHL. I think they are performing as expected.

Worse than Arizona or Montreal? Nah

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

They aren’t the worst team in the nhl talent wise (close)but they are the worst managed team cap wise. To be at the cap and ice a roster like this is inexcusable.

Absolutely not. They are nowhere near the worst managed team cap wise. That would be the Chicago Blackhawks. Chicago traded away a 1D (Buff), a bona-fide top 6 forward and a high caliber prospect (Sharp and Johns), a legit top 6 C prospect (Teravainen), and a top 10 in the league RW (Panarin). For that level of assets, they've gotten garbage (Brett Sopel and some other slapnuts), a 1st, and a 2nd, absolutely nothing (Those two for Garbutt and Daley. Garbutt was waived and Daley traded for Scuderi. Scuderi for Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff waived... all within the year), a 2nd and 3rd, and a far worse RW (Saad).

The Wings have had to deal with the fallout of the 2012 lockout. As soon as the league put the crap in for the LTIR, they were at risk of having 10M+ sitting on it for a few years. To actually be able to utilize the full cap, you have to be able to fill it up with players because to use LTIR, you are actually replacing the injured player's salary. So... if you were able to globally cut their salaries by 10M from all players... guess what, they'd have no cap space. Rather, they'd be operating with a cap that is several million less than every other team. Essentially, the Wings would still be capped out with an even worse roster if they didn't sign guys like Nielsen and Daley and Green.

To be at the cap and ice a roster like this is almost entirely the work of the owners from 2012 and/or guys getting injured prematurely. Stephen Weiss doesn't blow out his groin, they don't buy him out and have 2.5M on the cap for nothing nor do they need to sign Frans Nielsen to replace Datsyuk.

You can ***** about their cap management... but they've literally had enough cap space in each of the past years to land a truly big fish if they wanted to. They'll have enough space next year to sign Karlsson if he wanted to come here. They have like 38M of the players that bother you coming off the cap in the next two years and no big time assets to re-sign.

 

[Invictus12]

Yet we are still over the cap and aren’t a young team.But everyone is so proud of Holland this summer. You don’t get praise for TRYING to correct YOUR mess. We have the most bad unmovable contracts in the entire NHL. All of this factors into why we suck in OT. I’m sure we are just happy to even get to OT so we get that loser’s point.

What do you need to remove those 'bad contracts' for exactly? They're falling out like dominoes year after year anyway and kids, little by little are taking over the spots.

Mind you, tied in the third, just about every coach in the NHL plays conservative and tries to squeeze a point out of the game. That's just smart strategy no matter how you twisted or turn it....

 

[kliq]

Are you really exceeding expectations when you have a bottom 5-8 team while spending the most money in the league?

The Wings entire philosophy the past half decade was "Let's lose enough so we can lose in the first round of the playoffs." That's why they spent so much money. They wanted a team with a very high floor, but a very low ceiling.

You said, that the Wings had the LEAST TALENTED roster in the league. If that is true, and they are in the 22-25 range, then that implies that the coaching staff is exceeding expectations. How much the GM spends or doesn't spend has nothing to do with what is expected of the coach based on the players he has. You pay a shitty player a high salary, that doesnt mean the coach should get more out of him.

Your second paragraph is just a Holland rant, nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I think you just got caught in you're own hyperbole. Either that, or you think very highly of Blashill.

 

[kliq]

They aren’t the worst team in the nhl talent wise (close)but they are the worst managed team cap wise. To be at the cap and ice a roster like this is inexcusable.

My post had zero to do with cap.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Not really sure I care that much if we spend 80 million versus 60 million to be bad. Sure you might be able to sneak a trade or do something... But to date I haven't seen the cap crushing what we are trying to do. As long as the Ilitch family is cool burning the extra cheddar, I don't care a whole lot. Plus you know who likely hasn't thrown away the Wings spend to the cap, members of the NHLPA.

While I will dislike Dekeyser, Helm and Abdelkader's deals moving forward they aren't really organizational blockers given our timeline. But should we get in the room with Karlsson this off-season, he doesn't think we are cheap, he will believe when the organization says we are working our way out of this... People can hate that, but being a max team even at the worst of times isn't a bad message to the few big ticket items that reach free agency, guys that most the time reach free agency and site the owners willingness to spend among the reasons they are leaving... Time will tell, but with Zetterberg likely LTIRetiring are actually cap problems are no more currently.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

What do you need to remove those 'bad contracts' for exactly? They're falling out like dominoes year after year anyway and kids, little by little are taking over the spots.

Mind you, tied in the third, just about every coach in the NHL plays conservative and tries to squeeze a point out of the game. That's just smart strategy no matter how you twisted or turn it....

Wasn’t twisting anything. MY point was the team is satisfied with even being in OT to begin with not their strategy is to only get to OT. Two different things entirely.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Absolutely not. They are nowhere near the worst managed team cap wise. That would be the Chicago Blackhawks. Chicago traded away a 1D (Buff), a bona-fide top 6 forward and a high caliber prospect (Sharp and Johns), a legit top 6 C prospect (Teravainen), and a top 10 in the league RW (Panarin). For that level of assets, they've gotten garbage (Brett Sopel and some other slapnuts), a 1st, and a 2nd, absolutely nothing (Those two for Garbutt and Daley. Garbutt was waived and Daley traded for Scuderi. Scuderi for Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff waived... all within the year), a 2nd and 3rd, and a far worse RW (Saad).

The Wings have had to deal with the fallout of the 2012 lockout. As soon as the league put the crap in for the LTIR, they were at risk of having 10M+ sitting on it for a few years. To actually be able to utilize the full cap, you have to be able to fill it up with players because to use LTIR, you are actually replacing the injured player's salary. So... if you were able to globally cut their salaries by 10M from all players... guess what, they'd have no cap space. Rather, they'd be operating with a cap that is several million less than every other team. Essentially, the Wings would still be capped out with an even worse roster if they didn't sign guys like Nielsen and Daley and Green.

To be at the cap and ice a roster like this is almost entirely the work of the owners from 2012 and/or guys getting injured prematurely. Stephen Weiss doesn't blow out his groin, they don't buy him out and have 2.5M on the cap for nothing nor do they need to sign Frans Nielsen to replace Datsyuk.

You can ***** about their cap management... but they've literally had enough cap space in each of the past years to land a truly big fish if they wanted to. They'll have enough space next year to sign Karlsson if he wanted to come here. They have like 38M of the players that bother you coming off the cap in the next two years and no big time assets to re-sign.

What do all these random trades have to do with cap space?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

What do all these random trades have to do with cap space?

Are you ****ing daft? The whole reason that Chicago moved any of those guys was because they couldn’t pay them. They took 30 cents on the dollar, if that, on premier assets because they borked their cap so bad.

They HAD to trade Sharp when he was still like 0.80 PPG along with a nice young piece because they needed his 6M off the books. They got precisely dick for him.

They had to trade away a cost controlled top 6C in Teravainen so Carolina would take Bickell, again, because they needed cap space.

They traded Panarin for Saad because Panarin wanted too much money so they traded for a cheaper and worse replacement.

They just traded away Hinostroza along with other pieces to get Hossa’s deal off their books.

Chicago pissed away good players for virtually no return but cap space. Also... they’ve got two contracts on their books I’d say are now a good deal worse than any Detroit has.

Toews at 10.5 till 2023
Seabrook at 6.875 till 2024

Toews is debatable because he’s their captain and he was a huge part of the three Cups they did win... but he hasn’t been that near PPG #1C for several years and guys normally don’t pick it up as they approach and surpass 30. And 10.5M is a f’ing boatload of cap space.

Seabrook sucks NOW and is locked in until 2024 at #2D money.

 

[One Blurred Eye]

You said, that the Wings had the WORST roster in the league. If that is true, and they are in the 22-25 range, then that implies that the coaching staff is exceeding expectations. How much the GM spends or doesn't spend has nothing to do with what is expected of the coach based on the players he has. You pay a ****ty player a high salary, that doesnt mean the coach should get more out of him.

Your second paragraph is just a Holland rant, nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I think you just got caught in you're own hyperbole. Either that, or you're a Blashill slappy.

To the original statement and your rebuttal, you're into a bit of dirty pool here. Out of boredom I must interject my unsolicited nitpick. Hockey games are particularly prone to being decided by random/chaotic elements, everything from injuries to referee incompetence to ice conditions, such that the results often don't reflect purely or even accurately the expectation. It's entirely possible a team can simultaneously have the the worst roster and coaching staff in the league by whatever metric is in play (not saying I necessarily agree with either statement here) and still finish 20th or so. Hell, they could have finished first. They could have won 98 games in a row. It was highly unlikely, sure, but it's always to a degree at the mercy of a series of nebulous and chaotically interacting probabilities and human whims, which neither the final point standings or advanced metrics are immune to. Seven or eight one goal games breaking one way or the other for reasons beyond either the players' or coaches' direct control is the difference between dead last and a realistic shot at a playoff spot for this team. That is to say there's no obligation to pay compliment for an achievement that may have as likely arisen "randomly," especially absent compelling evidence the coach was making better decisions than a drunk monkey tossing monkey poops at the depth chart dart board (most probably a case of it not mattering, since the board was so limited in options). A meager few spots difference in the results vs a depressed expectation doesn't serve as a particularly strong A/B exclusivity trap with which to ensnare a frustrated fan in a gotcha, less so since the logical inconsistency you were hoping to expose in deploying it doesn't actually exist here. I mean, sure, there's probably some emotionally-fueled hyperbole in the extremely adverse assessment given of the quality of the roster, but once you take it upon yourself to don the Boolean bow-tie in the role of Semantic Logician for the topic at hand then you have to do it right, right?

I think there's wiggle room too with regards to what should be expected of a coach in the scope of the discussion, at least narrowly. Coaches and GMs do interact and influence each other in the construction of the team after all (sometimes they're even the same person...)--they have to accommodate one another to some degree to succeed together. If a GM concedes a favored if lacking player at an inflated price to the coach to help maintain the viability of that working relationship, it does seem there is or should be some onus on the coach to produce commensurately with a reasonably inflated expectation of result, if that was the basis on which the coach lobbied for said player. Granted, a GM is obligated to put his foot down at some point, it's probably only rare where a coach requests and gets such a player, and in this particular case, doubt Blash has that clout to begin with anyway. But in evoking generalities and absolutes, the logic has some navigable holes. /nitpicking

Personally I think Blash can be credited in a perverse way with the team's "success" last season. They had 30ish games that ended in a one-goal difference, however many more that were within one late before an empty-net goal put it away, mostly low scoring affairs. Kinda leaned hard I think into the dearth of talent to reduce those contests to the aforementioned dice rolls, really not a bad strategy if your mandate is make the playoffs with a wanting roster, or play meaningful games in April or wherever those goalposts shifted to eventually. It wasn't a high chance to succeed in that regard, but probably his only realistic chance, and it's so maybe not unfair to suspect they picked up a few more wins than they really deserved as a result of their coach.

 

[kliq]

To the original statement and your rebuttal, you're into a bit of dirty pool here. Out of boredom I must interject my unsolicited nitpick. Hockey games are particularly prone to being decided by random/chaotic elements, everything from injuries to referee incompetence to ice conditions, such that the results often don't reflect purely or even accurately the expectation. It's entirely possible a team can simultaneously have the the worst roster and coaching staff in the league by whatever metric is in play (not saying I necessarily agree with either statement here) and still finish 20th or so. Hell, they could have finished first. They could have won 98 games in a row. It was highly unlikely, sure, but it's always to a degree at the mercy of a series of nebulous and chaotically interacting probabilities and human whims, which neither the final point standings or advanced metrics are immune to. Seven or eight one goal games breaking one way or the other for reasons beyond either the players' or coaches' direct control is the difference between dead last and a realistic shot at a playoff spot for this team. That is to say there's no obligation to pay compliment for an achievement that may have as likely arisen "randomly," especially absent compelling evidence the coach was making better decisions than a drunk monkey tossing monkey poops at the depth chart dart board (most probably a case of it not mattering, since the board was so limited in options). A meager few spots difference in the results vs a depressed expectation doesn't serve as a particularly strong A/B exclusivity trap with which to ensnare a frustrated fan in a gotcha, less so since the logical inconsistency you were hoping to expose in deploying it doesn't actually exist here. I mean, sure, there's probably some emotionally-fueled hyperbole in the extremely adverse assessment given of the quality of the roster, but once you take it upon yourself to don the Boolean bow-tie in the role of Semantic Logician for the topic at hand then you have to do it right, right?

I think there's wiggle room too with regards to what should be expected of a coach in the scope of the discussion, at least narrowly. Coaches and GMs do interact and influence each other in the construction of the team after all (sometimes they're even the same person...)--they have to accommodate one another to some degree to succeed together. If a GM concedes a favored if lacking player at an inflated price to the coach to help maintain the viability of that working relationship, it does seem there is or should be some onus on the coach to produce commensurately with a reasonably inflated expectation of result, if that was the basis on which the coach lobbied for said player. Granted, a GM is obligated to put his foot down at some point, it's probably only rare where a coach requests and gets such a player, and in this particular case, doubt Blash has that clout to begin with anyway. But in evoking generalities and absolutes, the logic has some navigable holes. /nitpicking

Personally I think Blash can be credited in a perverse way with the team's "success" last season. They had 30ish games that ended in a one-goal difference, however many more that were within one late before an empty-net goal put it away, mostly low scoring affairs. Kinda leaned hard I think into the dearth of talent to reduce those contests to the aforementioned dice rolls, really not a bad strategy if your mandate is make the playoffs with a wanting roster, or play meaningful games in April or wherever those goalposts shifted to eventually. It wasn't a high chance to succeed in that regard, but probably his only realistic chance, and it's so maybe not unfair to suspect they picked up a few more wins than they really deserved as a result of their coach.

I can see why you would respond to me with this after looking at my post in a bubble as I probably sounded like an ass. My point was to point out the hyperbole in a statement made by a poster who does just that with pretty much every single post that they make.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Are you ****ing daft? The whole reason that Chicago moved any of those guys was because they couldn’t pay them. They took 30 cents on the dollar, if that, on premier assets because they borked their cap so bad.

They HAD to trade Sharp when he was still like 0.80 PPG along with a nice young piece because they needed his 6M off the books. They got precisely dick for him.

They had to trade away a cost controlled top 6C in Teravainen so Carolina would take Bickell, again, because they needed cap space.

They traded Panarin for Saad because Panarin wanted too much money so they traded for a cheaper and worse replacement.

They just traded away Hinostroza along with other pieces to get Hossa’s deal off their books.

Chicago pissed away good players for virtually no return but cap space. Also... they’ve got two contracts on their books I’d say are now a good deal worse than any Detroit has.

Toews at 10.5 till 2023
Seabrook at 6.875 till 2024

Toews is debatable because he’s their captain and he was a huge part of the three Cups they did win... but he hasn’t been that near PPG #1C for several years and guys normally don’t pick it up as they approach and surpass 30. And 10.5M is a f’ing boatload of cap space.

Seabrook sucks NOW and is locked in until 2024 at #2D money.

much of hawks cap issues have come from having too many good players. can't keep them all. that's how they got 3 cups. they don't/didn't have many bad deals so i wouldn't put it in bad cap management column. they have screwed up many of those trades though, '09 QO debacle was hilariously bad and seabrook contract was one of the worst contracts in the entire league before the ink was dry.

 

[lilidk]

Yes, Holland made some mistakes last couple years,but who doesn't. The most important thing is that he understand that and he trying to fix it. I don't think people realized how important Datsyuk was for team. So many times he carried this team on his shoulders. The biggest mistake Holland did when Pavel quit was try to keep Wings as a contender. He should of started rebuild from that moment, but for now we have one of the best NHL gm and I believe in bright future of the RW,