Do you still support Ken Holland and Mike Babcock?

[RedWingsNow*]

I wonder sometimes what people expect.

Many are unhappy with Holland/Babcock, but mostly for LITTLE things: (cleary, samuelsson)(Hossa not being resigned).

You expect to find a #1 Center? With no draft pick below 15?
-Impossible.
It will never happen. Maybe EVEN IF YOU HAVE a low pick.

The team HAS to get bad, before you replace superstars.
I thought this was true and then Detroit pulled the impossible... Yzerman, Shanahan out... and magically our young kids got good.
This could happen again with Nyquist/Tatar/Jarnkrok/etc... one can only hope. But if they turn into Filppula's and Hudler's shouldn't we also be happy? Quality 2nd liners are nothing to scoff at.

Do not blame Ken for not finding new world class 2 way players... because I dont think anyone else could have done that with what Detroit had to work with either. I infact think Ken has done a great job trading down to get 2 2nd rounders each year and make our prospect pool stronger.

I have some serious complaints. But lets at LEAST be realistic about the outcome of different people in our management roles.

I think you just need to think a little harder to understand what I'm talking about.
And then you'd understand "my expectations" instead of labeling them "unrealistic.":

For one - we've sort of wasted the last 3 years.
2009 we lost in the finals. We blew by losing a truly elite player in Hossa.
2010 we lost in round 2.
At this point you have to make a decision.
1) do you load up with high quality UFAs and players in trades?
or
2) do you begin the rebuild from within.

Sadly, for 10-11 we resigned Holmstrom and Bertuzzi for two years. We signed Modano for one year. We signed Salei instead of using Kindl

This was the window -- even with Hossa gone. We needed to make a decision.

Instead, we spun our tires.

Finally, you can act like it "unrealistic"to set our sights on a young franchise center.
But considering we got our current franchise centers deep in the draft, it's no unheard of.
Considering a player like Giroux was drafted at 22, it's not unheard of. A guy like Getzlaf was drafted at 19. David Backes was drafted at 62. Bergeron was drafted at 45th.
Joe THornton was traded.
Tyler Seguin was traded.

You can make every excuse in the book about why this, that or the other thing isn't possible.

But you're still just making excuses.

 

[Roy S]

For each of the last four seasons, they've sort of been in the #5 to #8 range in terms of best teams in the NHL based off their regular season finishes in that range in those years and/or 3 of 4 trips to the second round and twice coming within a game of advancing further. They also are 6th in regular season wins and tied for 7th in playoff wins in that time period. They just haven't been able to take that next step into a clear cut top 4 team in the league the last few seasons. They went through similar, arguably inevitable, transition periods between 99-01 and 03-06.

If you take a long view, I don't think the past 4 seasons are anywhere near as bad as they are portrayed given the departures of Lids, Rafalski, Stuart and the gradual decline of Z, D, Franzen, etc. while integrating 10 prospects/ signed un drafted free agents (Helm, Abdelkader, Ericsson, Kindl, Smith, Dekeyser, Lashoff, Andersson, Glendening and Tatar) on the current roster + LTIR. That's an average of two prospects a year plus Nyquist has 58 games of regular season and playoff experience and Emmerton has well over 100. Grand Rapids also just won a championship last year built on Wings prospects.

Given their slow, patient approach, track record of development, current stable of prospects and the core of Z, D, Kronwall, Franzen and Howard, at the very least I'd expect them to make the playoffs for the next several years and try to catch lightening in a bottle with a long playoff run based off the parity in the league.

But, given the advancing age of Z, D, Franzen and Kronwall, the recent signings of Alfredsson and Weiss, a number of quality young assets who are NHL ready who are either going to be RFA's or locked into good contracts for a few years (Kindl, Smith, Tatar, Nyquist) and a stable of other trade chips in the minors + draft picks, this seems like as good a time as any for Holland to swing a deal or two to improve both the defenseman and forward corps and push them into that top 4 team category and increase their odds of winning another Stanley Cup. Otherwise, this year likely won't be any different than the last 4- which isn't the worst thing in the world, but at some point they need to have another really good regular season + long playoff run.

 

[Sadekuuro]

For one - we've sort of wasted the last 3 years.

I see this as a bigger sin than having yet to find another #1 center. That is indeed a big hole to fill (not that we shouldn't be constantly searching for a way to get one).

But we knew the Lidstrom window was closing, we knew Dats and Z were starting to age but still elite, and we dithered, playing it so conservatively that we didn't do anything to add to what we had. Other teams got better while we let a championship roster slowly erode to a collection of spare parts. Hardly a winning philosophy, I agree.

 

[JackieTreehorn]

I see this as a bigger sin than having yet to find another #1 center. That is indeed a big hole to fill (not that we shouldn't be constantly searching for a way to get one).

But we knew the Lidstrom window was closing, we knew Dats and Z were starting to age but still elite, and we dithered, playing it so conservatively that we didn't do anything to add to what we had. Other teams got better while we let a championship roster slowly erode to a collection of spare parts. Hardly a winning philosophy, I agree.

Agree with this. Essentially we decided to run out the clock on Datsyuk and Zetterbergs careers.

I started losing faith in Holland when Maltby and Draper kept getting resigned despite being way past their expiration date. They might have done a slightly better job than others but all it did was delay the inevitable and neither under any circumstance been the player that puts Detroit over the top.

Ive argued I wish Holland took devallanos job and let Yzerman or Nil's fresh set of eyes look over the problems. Folks like to point Yzermans lack of success yet, however literally the only way you could do a worse job than has been done is trade Datsyuk or Zetterberg. Now both are gone.

Ever since the 1st loss to the sharks in the playoffs Holland has essentially been rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man!

Haha, I've used that very same handle before.

 

[JackieTreehorn]

great, great movie. Starting to feel a bit dated though. Love that Treehorn is the bad guy in Roadhouse.

 

[67coach]

I know I'm a little late to this party but here is my two cents:

"A coach can only play the players he has to work with" This was a quote from Mike Babcock three years ago when he tried to put media pressure on KH at the trade deadline to sign a big name free agent. The problem is that this quote has backfired on Babcock, He has Tatar, He has Nyquist and he has other younger players on the roster but he continues to play Danny Cleary and other veterans.
Now, I'm not sure if Cleary is a Wing because Holland wanted him, Babcock wanted him or if Mike Ilitch wanted him and I'm not sure if he's getting ice time for the same reasons.
Without knowing for sure who was ultimately responsible for bringing Cleary back it is difficult to know whom to blame!

I am making this sound like the Cleary signing is the be all and end all of the discussion. I think the biggest issue is that we have a GM and a Coach that are not on the same page. Holland continues to look for players that fit in the Scotty Bowman style of hockey, puck possession, skillful and finesse and Babcock wants to play dump and chase, roughty toughty hockey.

To see the success we have seen in the past, they need to be on the same page or one of them has to go

 

[WingedWheel1987]

This season is already shaping up to be another waste.

Spawn more veterans. You do not have enough vespene gas.

 

[TheNextDaigle]

I think you just need to think a little harder to understand what I'm talking about.
And then you'd understand "my expectations" instead of labeling them "unrealistic.":

For one - we've sort of wasted the last 3 years.
2009 we lost in the finals. We blew by losing a truly elite player in Hossa.
2010 we lost in round 2.
At this point you have to make a decision.
1) do you load up with high quality UFAs and players in trades?
or
2) do you begin the rebuild from within.

Sadly, for 10-11 we resigned Holmstrom and Bertuzzi for two years. We signed Modano for one year. We signed Salei instead of using Kindl

This was the window -- even with Hossa gone. We needed to make a decision.

Instead, we spun our tires.

Finally, you can act like it "unrealistic"to set our sights on a young franchise center.
But considering we got our current franchise centers deep in the draft, it's no unheard of.
Considering a player like Giroux was drafted at 22, it's not unheard of. A guy like Getzlaf was drafted at 19. David Backes was drafted at 62. Bergeron was drafted at 45th.
Joe THornton was traded.
Tyler Seguin was traded.

You can make every excuse in the book about why this, that or the other thing isn't possible.

But you're still just making excuses.

Don´t forget Jamie Benn. 129th overall.. 5th round. THE biggest "steal" the last 7-10 drafts? He is up there at least.

 

[Winger98]

Don´t forget Jamie Benn. 129th overall.. 5th round. THE biggest "steal" the last 7-10 drafts? He is up there at least.

So he was passed over four times by most teams. Not necessarily directed at you, but it's too easy to look back at a draft and say we should have drafted this or that guy. If we went back over the draft threads we have every year, though, we would see a ton of guys we would be saying we should have taken with this or that pick just to see them bust three years later anyway.

Despite the slow development path the Wings push, it looks like they stand a good chance of having a couple of NHLers from every draft dating back to 2009. Maybe no one like Benn or Giroux, but some decent players regardless.

 

[BinCookin]

I think you just need to think a little harder to understand what I'm talking about.
And then you'd understand "my expectations" instead of labeling them "unrealistic.":

For one - we've sort of wasted the last 3 years.
2009 we lost in the finals. We blew by losing a truly elite player in Hossa.
2010 we lost in round 2.
At this point you have to make a decision.
1) do you load up with high quality UFAs and players in trades?
or
2) do you begin the rebuild from within.

Sadly, for 10-11 we resigned Holmstrom and Bertuzzi for two years. We signed Modano for one year. We signed Salei instead of using Kindl

This was the window -- even with Hossa gone. We needed to make a decision.

Instead, we spun our tires.

Finally, you can act like it "unrealistic"to set our sights on a young franchise center.
But considering we got our current franchise centers deep in the draft, it's no unheard of.
Considering a player like Giroux was drafted at 22, it's not unheard of. A guy like Getzlaf was drafted at 19. David Backes was drafted at 62. Bergeron was drafted at 45th.
Joe THornton was traded.
Tyler Seguin was traded.

You can make every excuse in the book about why this, that or the other thing isn't possible.

But you're still just making excuses.

I am not making excuses RWN. I disagree with management on many of the same points you do.
If we have Hossa, and the Blackhawks don't... do we win the stanley cup? Because that year, he didn't actually play that well. Also how do we know that Hossa just didnt think Chicago was better... and that he was going to choose to be there either way? We don't actually know.

You Blame Holland without enough information too vocally is my only point.

"Load up on high-quality UFAs" i would argue there has been a shallow pool to choose from each year.
Parise/Suter was the nicest year. We missed.

You Blame Holland specifically for not offering enough money (maybe right, maybe wrong) but
you disregard the point that these 2 guys talked and moved to their home city. The both got 7.5 Mil a year to move home. Would you be ok with paying each of them 9.5 Mil a year to choose Detroit instead? They might not even go for that.

I am just saying that if YOU were the Detroit GM, I don't think you could have put together the best team in hockey given the same circumstances, not because of your talent or ideas, but because you would have needed alot of luck with limited choices. Its very possible that many of the players we complain about our reasons we are still a good team.

I mostly disagree with your assessment of the team. They are a good team. They just are not the best team. You think playing Nyq and Tatar in the top group makes us stronger. So do I. But I cannot state it as a fact. I just hope for trades or injuries or something. I agree with you. I am not making excuses for Mike and Ken. But you are stating the team is horrible, and these guys are idiots and its more like a grey area. Thats my only point. The extreme nature of your points do create discussion though

I would really like to see Sammy get traded. Plz Plz Ken do something to get rid of some of the OLD forwards. God its frustrating to have alfie perfectly set up Cleary, instead of Andersson. Really wanted Cleary to have no points at all.

 

[Winger98]

You Blame Holland specifically for not offering enough money (maybe right, maybe wrong) but
you disregard the point that these 2 guys talked and moved to their home city. The both got 7.5 Mil a year to move home. Would you be ok with paying each of them 9.5 Mil a year to choose Detroit instead? They might not even go for that.

Hindsight being 20/20, yeah, we should have went $10m or so for Suter. not if we had to include Parise at that, though.

 

[BinCookin]

Hindsight being 20/20, yeah, we should have went $10m or so for Suter. not if we had to include Parise at that, though.

Of course.

I also don't like scrutinizing the past with too much effort because although some players might seem awesome, they are also a matter of circumstances. Also assuming we could sign anyone is just a little cocky. There are 29 other teams that want those players, and 29 other teams that have money.

We could have an endless thread talking about what we should have done... but no one knows if their ideas would work, because we can't test them.

I prefer to deal with facts. We have been a good team, 5th to 7th best in the league for the last 3-4 years. I dislike when people lie about that. We have NOT won a stanley cup in this time. Complain all you want, I feel happy to be a fan of the DRW, as they have given me much to cheer about.

I am willing to say NOW, that i think Sammy or Cleary or Bert or SOMEONE has to go to make room for our younger players ready to make the jump. Holland refusing to play them this year, has been alot more painful that previous mistakes because we ALL know they are ready to play. OVERRIPE can only go so far. Tatar is press box now, not even AHL. At this point we ARE STUNTING his development. He has to play. Let the old guys battle for icetime.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Holland has been death by 1000 cuts.

 

[Flowah]

It's unfair to judge someone by hindsight, sure.

But at a certain point, if a GM is repeatedly unable to make the right move, or consistently signs injury prone vets to bad terms we can't get rid of, it's time to say "Hmmmm."

 

[Johnz96*]

Of course.

I also don't like scrutinizing the past with too much effort because although some players might seem awesome, they are also a matter of circumstances. Also assuming we could sign anyone is just a little cocky. There are 29 other teams that want those players, and 29 other teams that have money.

We could have an endless thread talking about what we should have done... but no one knows if their ideas would work, because we can't test them.

I prefer to deal with facts. We have been a good team, 5th to 7th best in the league for the last 3-4 years. I dislike when people lie about that. We have NOT won a stanley cup in this time. Complain all you want, I feel happy to be a fan of the DRW, as they have given me much to cheer about.

I am willing to say NOW, that i think Sammy or Cleary or Bert or SOMEONE has to go to make room for our younger players ready to make the jump. Holland refusing to play them this year, has been alot more painful that previous mistakes because we ALL know they are ready to play. OVERRIPE can only go so far. Tatar is press box now, not even AHL. At this point we ARE STUNTING his development. He has to play. Let the old guys battle for icetime.

Of course???

 

[BinCookin]

Of course???

of course hindsight is 20/20

 

[Winger98]

Of course.

I also don't like scrutinizing the past with too much effort because although some players might seem awesome, they are also a matter of circumstances. Also assuming we could sign anyone is just a little cocky. There are 29 other teams that want those players, and 29 other teams that have money.

We could have an endless thread talking about what we should have done... but no one knows if their ideas would work, because we can't test them.

I prefer to deal with facts. We have been a good team, 5th to 7th best in the league for the last 3-4 years. I dislike when people lie about that. We have NOT won a stanley cup in this time. Complain all you want, I feel happy to be a fan of the DRW, as they have given me much to cheer about.

I am willing to say NOW, that i think Sammy or Cleary or Bert or SOMEONE has to go to make room for our younger players ready to make the jump. Holland refusing to play them this year, has been alot more painful that previous mistakes because we ALL know they are ready to play. OVERRIPE can only go so far. Tatar is press box now, not even AHL. At this point we ARE STUNTING his development. He has to play. Let the old guys battle for icetime.

And once you start moving too far from what happened, the speculation gets a bit out of control. It would be nice to have signed this guy over that guy, but at some point it feels like I'm reading some alternate history text where Stalin took over America, except with our alternate histories we always end up winning the cup. And at some point, laboring over deals 5-10 years old is just pointless. I mean, I'm fairly certain an argument could be made about not trading oates for federko, but who cares?

And I don't think the wings success, even the past few years of it, is properly regarded. There have been teams who would love to have been in the playoffs the last three years, let alone the last 22, and we're supposed to be so abysmally coached and managed? At some point the constantly reiterated stance that we're about to fail will come true, it has to, but it's not something I lose sleep over or consider some astonishing feat of insight.

I look forward to some day seeing Tatar and Nyquist on the ice, though, too. At the same time, we're 4-2 and haven't played all that well in the majority of the games. I think that comes out to around 110 points on a season. If we end up around that, it's a pretty damn good year regardless of who we're putting on the ice.

 

[BinCookin]

And once you start moving too far from what happened, the speculation gets a bit out of control. It would be nice to have signed this guy over that guy, but at some point it feels like I'm reading some alternate history text where Stalin took over America, except with our alternate histories we always end up winning the cup. And at some point, laboring over deals 5-10 years old is just pointless. I mean, I'm fairly certain an argument could be made about not trading oates for federko, but who cares?

And I don't think the wings success, even the past few years of it, is properly regarded. There have been teams who would love to have been in the playoffs the last three years, let alone the last 22, and we're supposed to be so abysmally coached and managed? At some point the constantly reiterated stance that we're about to fail will come true, it has to, but it's not something I lose sleep over or consider some astonishing feat of insight.

I look forward to some day seeing Tatar and Nyquist on the ice, though, too. At the same time, we're 4-2 and haven't played all that well in the majority of the games. I think that comes out to around 110 points on a season. If we end up around that, it's a pretty damn good year regardless of who we're putting on the ice.

Your general stance agrees with mine.

We have a good team, and all our "vets" are a part of that whether people like it or not.
There have been changes. People make it seem like getting Alfredsson and Weiss are not a big deal. It is, if D and Z continue to magic up the top line. As I said, I am looking at the present. I hope Tatar has a big game his next game. He will need a goal or 2 assists to stay in the lineup. OR OR OR cleary or sammy need to score no point for 3 games. Nyquist has 6 pts in 3GP in AHL. I wish he was up. But we have a good team. Its hard to respect super negative opinions about our team which is infact still good.

 

[Winger98]

It's unfair to judge someone by hindsight, sure.

But at a certain point, if a GM is repeatedly unable to make the right move, or consistently signs injury prone vets to bad terms we can't get rid of, it's time to say "Hmmmm."

What's the threshold for determining whether a move was right or not? If the bar is set at winning the cup or it's a total failure, I think it's wholly unfair. With that sort of standard, there should be a lot of GMs losing their jobs.

And it's not like I want to see the lineups Babcock is currently putting on ice, or that I think we've played particularly well. I want to see Tatar and Nyquist out there instead of sammy, cleary, miller, tootoo, etc., but I'm not sure we'd be better than the 4-2 record we're currently sitting at. Or that we would necessarily be better off 76 games from now.

I guess part of my problem is that we assume that if we would have done Y instead of X that the results would have been significantly different. they might have been. But I think in most instances the end result of our seasons wouldn't be a whole lot different than what they have been.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

What's the threshold for determining whether a move was right or not? If the bar is set at winning the cup or it's a total failure, I think it's wholly unfair. With that sort of standard, there should be a lot of GMs losing their jobs.

And it's not like I want to see the lineups Babcock is currently putting on ice, or that I think we've played particularly well. I want to see Tatar and Nyquist out there instead of sammy, cleary, miller, tootoo, etc., but I'm not sure we'd be better than the 4-2 record we're currently sitting at. Or that we would necessarily be better off 76 games from now.

I guess part of my problem is that we assume that if we would have done Y instead of X that the results would have been significantly different. they might have been. But I think in most instances the end result of our seasons wouldn't be a whole lot different than what they have been.

The minimum a GM must do every season is make sure you got something out of the season. Ken Holland has not gotten the Wings anything these past four years. He didn't play the kids and he kept rolling with washed up garbage. There was no growth. Last season was the first time since 09 I viewed the Wings as having a successful season. Prospects developed and played a crucial role in helping the Wings advance to the second round.

What did we get this season? More washed up garbage.

Ken Holland was making terrible moves and people were calling him out on them before they happened or five seconds after they happened. Hindsight maybe 20/20, but the most vocal Holland critics have been calling him out on his BS long before you could argue our criticisms were after the fact.

 

[BinCookin]

What's the threshold for determining whether a move was right or not? If the bar is set at winning the cup or it's a total failure, I think it's wholly unfair. With that sort of standard, there should be a lot of GMs losing their jobs.

And it's not like I want to see the lineups Babcock is currently putting on ice, or that I think we've played particularly well. I want to see Tatar and Nyquist out there instead of sammy, cleary, miller, tootoo, etc., but I'm not sure we'd be better than the 4-2 record we're currently sitting at. Or that we would necessarily be better off 76 games from now.

I guess part of my problem is that we assume that if we would have done Y instead of X that the results would have been significantly different. they might have been. But I think in most instances the end result of our seasons wouldn't be a whole lot different than what they have been.

There is one example i am thinking of:

Tomas Hertl in SJ. I bet they put him on the top line with Thornton because
"why the hell not, we have nothing to lose" - The idea that the team needs tweaks etc. The idea that the team is not necessarily a winner with the status quo.
It has worked for them.

I do not see the same experiments being tried on the Red Wings. I mean Nyquist or Tatar have never really been put on a higher line. Its the DRW way... not rush people in, not put too much pressure on them. But Nyquist and Tatar are not 19 year olds. They would probably handle the top line spot for a few games without ruining them. Maybe Nyquist-D-Z would be amazing... or maybe Tatar-D-Z would be amazing. Why do I feel like a 3 game trial period of different wingers on the top line would be worth the effort? Just seems like we are not going to even try to do the same thing as SJ, because we have a belief we are still good - "we do have something to lose". That attitude i question.
I think its clear Nyquist has offensive upside and should not be put on a 4th line spot. Why not try him up there for 2-3 games.. "why not?" ??

 

[BinCookin]

Hindsight maybe 20/20, but the most vocal Holland critics have been calling him out on his BS long before you could argue our criticisms were after the fact.

I agree with this. Cleary signing was called out immediately. Good call.
I think we are EQUALLY strong, if not stronger if cleary was replaced by Tatar right now.

And if I am wrong... not the end of the world, we try Nyquist instead of Tatar.

Lets say I am wrong again. And neither are good. Then we can finally KNOW who is good and who is bad and make trades accordingly.

Basically all upside no matter the outcome.

I do not need to go back 2-3 years to agree with this most recent (1 month) ago plan. We do not yet know the outcome of 2013-2014 Dan Cleary. But I am ok with saying NO right now.. I want to see 2013-2014 Nyquist or Tatar instead. And I think Our team is better, no matter how it works out.

 

[Chance on Chance]

There is one example i am thinking of:

Tomas Hertl in SJ. I bet they put him on the top line with Thornton because
"why the hell not, we have nothing to lose" - The idea that the team needs tweaks etc. The idea that the team is not necessarily a winner with the status quo.
It has worked for them.

I do not see the same experiments being tried on the Red Wings. I mean Nyquist or Tatar have never really been put on a higher line. Its the DRW way... not rush people in, not put too much pressure on them. But Nyquist and Tatar are not 19 year olds. They would probably handle the top line spot for a few games without ruining them. Maybe Nyquist-D-Z would be amazing... or maybe Tatar-D-Z would be amazing. Why do I feel like a 3 game trial period of different wingers on the top line would be worth the effort? Just seems like we are not going to even try to do the same thing as SJ, because we have a belief we are still good - "we do have something to lose". That attitude i question.
I think its clear Nyquist has offensive upside and should not be put on a 4th line spot. Why not try him up there for 2-3 games.. "why not?" ??

Thats how I feel too, give us a bit better idea of what we have going forwards. Put them in a sink or swim position. Right now we still dont really know what we have with these guys at the NHL full season level. Worst case scenario Nyquist dont get called up. Next season he'll be 25 starting on the 3rd line, nothing about that sounds right

 

[bababooeyII]

I was in the minority way back when but I have not had faith in Holland since 2009 at least. I always felt he was way too conservative and too in love with his players. He remains the most overrated GM in sports, hands down. There is no GM in any city or sport who gets the benefit of the doubt that Ken Holland gets. The media and the fanbase (except for here) never question his (lack of) moves and his double speak about prospects vs. veterans. He is totally expendable, if you moved Nill or Yzerman into his seat the Wings would not miss a beat, maybe they would even benefit at a fresh seat of eyes and a slightly different philosophy.