How the Red Wings attempt to maintain a dynasty caused their demise

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I’ll pass on continuing with your unnecessarily hostile replies.

Here is a past thread with some data on draft picks and what they yield if you are interested:

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

The truth is somewhere inbetween as it always tends to be. The Wings have done okay in the draft. They haven't done amazing and they haven't badly flopped. However, in the new NHL, doing okay or drafting good isn't enough anymore. If you want to compete, you've got to hit on a couple gems. The Wings haven't done that. They've gotten competent NHL players out of their picks... which is a good thing. But they have not gotten nor had they really taken the risk at getting gamebreakers.

The couple of guys that they drafted who looked like they could be something either got badly injured (Igor Grigorenko) or medically retired (Fischer), or was a rock stupid troll (Brendan Smith). Jakub Kindl flamed out super hard as well. Then Ouellet and Sproul came out and were incredibly underwhelming. So basically the Wings got the depth picks rolling pretty good, but they just didn't get any top end player at any point through 2005-2011. They didn't strike out, but when you're the team building equivalent of down 8 runs in the ninth inning, bunt singles and sacrifice flies aren't gonna win you the game. They can be positive plays, but you needed something huge to hit and it just didn't.

 

[Henkka]

So with Janmark and Jarnkrok, you have cheap Abby and Helm replacements and $3.8 million to spare. Go back to the offseason and take away Filppula, and you now have an additional $6.8 million to go toward a much better free agent. Maybe it puts you in the Duchene sweepstakes. Maybe you use it to upgrade the defense with something better than Nemeth. Maybe you do nothing and save money. Any way you slice it, you're better off.

Are you?

Better off for the tanking?

 

[Tirekicker]

TBH, my only major gripe with Holland is that he never really addressed the gaping holes in the blue line left by Rafalski and Lidstrom. Elevating Kronwall to 1D and hoping for the best isn't much of a strategy -- unless you're ok with backing off a bit from the in-it-to-win-it mentality. Thing is, there was no back off. We just kind of...pretended everything was ok. "It's a draft-and-develop league." OK, cool. "There's no hockey store." OK, cool. "You can't replace a guy like Nick Lidstrom. You just can't." OK, cool. "Also, we want the Cup." OK, cool. "Kyle Quincey." OK, cool.

Babcock told the media he was "pissed off" that the Sharks were able to land Brent Burns. So was I. Still am, kinda.

 

[Tirekicker]

The truth is somewhere inbetween as it always tends to be. The Wings have done okay in the draft. They haven't done amazing and they haven't badly flopped. However, in the new NHL, doing okay or drafting good isn't enough anymore. If you want to compete, you've got to hit on a couple gems. The Wings haven't done that. They've gotten competent NHL players out of their picks... which is a good thing. But they have not gotten nor had they really taken the risk at getting gamebreakers.

The couple of guys that they drafted who looked like they could be something either got badly injured (Igor Grigorenko) or medically retired (Fischer), or was a rock stupid troll (Brendan Smith). Jakub Kindl flamed out super hard as well. Then Ouellet and Sproul came out and were incredibly underwhelming. So basically the Wings got the depth picks rolling pretty good, but they just didn't get any top end player at any point through 2005-2011. They didn't strike out, but when you're the team building equivalent of down 8 runs in the ninth inning, bunt singles and sacrifice flies aren't gonna win you the game. They can be positive plays, but you needed something huge to hit and it just didn't.

Yup.

Is it fair to criticize the Wings' drafting record when they were all-in on Cup runs? Maybe, maybe not. At the end of the day, the hard truth is that we needed our drafting machinery to produce a couple of gems and it failed to do that, which made a painful rebuild an inevitability. And so here we are today.

 

[Frk It]

However, in the new NHL, doing okay or drafting good isn't enough anymore. If you want to compete, you've got to hit on a couple gems.

Without high picks teams are going to fail at this. A lot. So just understand if this is your expectation, you are setting the bar extremely high. People think finding Nyquists and Tatar’s in the draft is a lot easier than it actually is. Which is why Vegas was willing to give up a 1, 2, and 3 for it.

The truth is somewhere inbetween as it always tends to be. The Wings have done okay in the draft. They haven't done amazing and they haven't badly flopped.

I agree, and my original point was that we drafted average as opposed to poorly.

 

[TheClap]

Are you?

Better off for the tanking?

Better off for rebuilding a competitive roster. Absolutely.

 

[TheClap]

I cant get past the first minute, agree or disagree with what he saying aside, I feel like I am listening to an over the top Tom Green impersonator.

If you're not familiar with Urinating Tree, I can see how you'd think that with how he comes off initially. He has some great stuff though. A little cynical, sarcastic take on professional sports. His weekly NFL recaps are great. Another to checkout, he had a great video about the St. Louis Blues legacy of failure, and then when they won the Cup last season he updated it and had a great tribute for their Cup run. I find his stuff entertaining.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Without high picks teams are going to fail at this. A lot. So just understand if this is your expectation, you are setting the bar extremely high. People think finding Nyquists and Tatar’s in the draft is a lot easier than it actually is. Which is why Vegas was willing to give up a 1, 2, and 3 for it.



I agree, and my original point was that we drafted average as opposed to poorly.

Absolutely I am setting the bar extremely high. I expect the team to be able to succeed at finding good players. To me, that's their job. I think Holland and Yzerman would tell you as much too. Professional sports as a whole are a failure based business. So many times the great successes of teams in the league are more good fortune and the absence of failures on their end as opposed to the other team. However, my own opinion is that when you try to be bad (tanking, "rebuilding", etc. you're setting yourself back rather than giving yourself a leg up. If you're looking at a team and you're planning to be abjectly terrible for 3-5 years... there is something wrong in your planning. No team or roster is that poorly managed that 5 years is required to turn it around with competent management.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

TBH, my only major gripe with Holland is that he never really addressed the gaping holes in the blue line left by Rafalski and Lidstrom. Elevating Kronwall to 1D and hoping for the best isn't much of a strategy -- unless you're ok with backing off a bit from the in-it-to-win-it mentality. Thing is, there was no back off. We just kind of...pretended everything was ok. "It's a draft-and-develop league." OK, cool. "There's no hockey store." OK, cool. "You can't replace a guy like Nick Lidstrom. You just can't." OK, cool. "Also, we want the Cup." OK, cool. "Kyle Quincey." OK, cool.

Babcock told the media he was "pissed off" that the Sharks were able to land Brent Burns. So was I. Still am, kinda.

Well it's more so that he elevated Kronwall who was one guy roughly on the level of Rafalski. They then neglected to replace either Lidstrom or Kronwall's old role as a top pairing guy who played in the #3 role.

Lidstrom-Rafalski
Kronwall-Stuart

and then they basically did this.

Kronwall-x
x-x

Where the x's are your Ericsson, DDK, insert random bum-ass bottom pairing D that you pushed too far up the lineup.

It wasn't elevating Kronner that was the problem at all. It's that you needed to replace 3 other positions and you put garbage A, trash B, and toxic waste C in those places.

 

[Pavels Dog]

TBH, my only major gripe with Holland is that he never really addressed the gaping holes in the blue line left by Rafalski and Lidstrom. Elevating Kronwall to 1D and hoping for the best isn't much of a strategy -- unless you're ok with backing off a bit from the in-it-to-win-it mentality. Thing is, there was no back off. We just kind of...pretended everything was ok. "It's a draft-and-develop league." OK, cool. "There's no hockey store." OK, cool. "You can't replace a guy like Nick Lidstrom. You just can't." OK, cool. "Also, we want the Cup." OK, cool. "Kyle Quincey." OK, cool.

Babcock told the media he was "pissed off" that the Sharks were able to land Brent Burns. So was I. Still am, kinda.

He did adress it. Went hard after Suter, traded for Quincey, signed Dekeyser, signed Green.

It's hard as heck to adress defense. I don't know how you can say we "pretended everything was ok". What did you want? Trading all our picks and prospects for someone? Selling everything because we were now only a very good team instead of a great one? Because we only had a good #1D instead of the best in history?

One one hand you can say "why didn't we trade for Burns". On the other hand, one piece going the other way was a former top 10 pick. We simply didn't have that kind of asset. Even if Setoguchi wasn't playing amazing, top 10 picks generally carry with them a certain value for a long time. Same as we have now, even if Zadina only becomes a 20 goal scorer he's going to have trade value for a long time based on his potential. The more high picks you have, the more expendable 1st round picks you have, the easier it is to swing a big trade.

Well it's more so that he elevated Kronwall who was one guy roughly on the level of Rafalski. They then neglected to replace either Lidstrom or Kronwall's old role as a top pairing guy who played in the #3 role.

Lidstrom-Rafalski
Kronwall-Stuart

and then they basically did this.

Kronwall-x
x-x

Where the x's are your Ericsson, DDK, insert random bum-ass bottom pairing D that you pushed too far up the lineup.

It wasn't elevating Kronner that was the problem at all. It's that you needed to replace 3 other positions and you put garbage A, trash B, and toxic waste C in those places.

Reading stuff like this I can't help but wonder how the hell people think we made the playoffs, even made the 2nd round in 2013 and were a 100 point team in 2015?

And don't give me no garbage about "it was all Dats+Z" when teams like Chicago and LA struggle mightily despite their arguably even stronger core. And Toronto with all their core talent is garbage, with the same coach that got us to the playoffs those years.

 

[Tirekicker]

Well it's more so that he elevated Kronwall who was one guy roughly on the level of Rafalski. They then neglected to replace either Lidstrom or Kronwall's old role as a top pairing guy who played in the #3 role.

Lidstrom-Rafalski
Kronwall-Stuart

and then they basically did this.

Kronwall-x
x-x

Where the x's are your Ericsson, DDK, insert random bum-ass bottom pairing D that you pushed too far up the lineup.

It wasn't elevating Kronner that was the problem at all. It's that you needed to replace 3 other positions and you put garbage A, trash B, and toxic waste C in those places.

Agreed. 100%. I should've been more clear -- Kronwall was never part of the problem. Basically, he was thrown to the wolves; year after year, Holland looked at the blue line and said, "Sorry, Nik. We'll try to figure something out. But you have to understand that this is a draft-and-develop league and there's no hockey store."

To Kronwall's great credit, he never made a fuss about the situation. (Or, if he did, he never went public.) Just showed up to work, did his job, led by example, gave his all for the winged wheel. I respect the hell out of him for that.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

He did adress it. Went hard after Suter, traded for Quincey, signed Dekeyser, signed Green.

It's hard as heck to adress defense. I don't know how you can say we "pretended everything was ok". What did you want? Trading all our picks and prospects for someone? Selling everything because we were now only a very good team instead of a great one? Because we only had a good #1D instead of the best in history?

One one hand you can say "why didn't we trade for Burns". On the other hand, one piece going the other way was a former top 10 pick. We simply didn't have that kind of asset. Even if Setoguchi wasn't playing amazing, top 10 picks generally carry with them a certain value for a long time. Same as we have now, even if Zadina only becomes a 20 goal scorer he's going to have trade value for a long time based on his potential. The more high picks you have, the more expendable 1st round picks you have, the easier it is to swing a big trade.



Reading stuff like this I can't help but wonder how the hell people think we made the playoffs, even made the 2nd round in 2013 and were a 100 point team in 2015?

And don't give me no garbage about "it was all Dats+Z" when teams like Chicago and LA struggle mightily despite their arguably even stronger core. And Toronto with all their core talent is garbage, with the same coach that got us to the playoffs those years.

I was maybe being unfair. Ericsson was an adequate replacement for Stuart and he and Kronner made a good top pairing. Not great, but good.

Here is that 12-13 defense.

20	Carlo Colaiacovo	30	D	6	0	1	1	-4	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	12	0.0	113	18:55	0.0	-0.1	-0.1	10	12	0	0
21	Danny DeKeyser	22	D	11	0	1	1	4	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	15	0.0	199	18:03	-0.1	0.8	0.7	9	9	0	0
22	Jonathan Ericsson	28	D	45	3	10	13	6	29	3	0	0	1	10	0	0	34	8.8	960	21:19	0.6	2.8	3.5	40	67	0	0
23	Kent Huskins	33	D	11	0	0	0	-3	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0.0	169	15:21	-0.2	0.2	-0.1	17	15	0	0
24	Jakub Kindl	25	D	41	4	9	13	15	28	3	1	0	2	7	2	0	76	5.3	761	18:33	1.0	3.1	4.1	33	46	0	0
25	Niklas Kronwall	32	D	48	5	24	29	-5	44	3	2	0	2	10	14	0	67	7.5	1169	24:22	2.4	2.4	4.8	83	42	0	0
26	Brian Lashoff	22	D	31	1	4	5	-10	15	1	0	0	0	4	0	0	26	3.8	551	17:47	0.0	0.5	0.5	43	44	0	0
27	Kyle Quincey	27	D	36	1	2	3	7	18	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	36	2.8	692	19:13	-0.4	2.3	1.9	46	29	0	0
28	Brendan Smith	23	D	34	0	8	8	1	36	0	0	0	0	6	2	0	33	0.0	626	18:24	0.1	1.6	1.7	35	20	0	0
29	Ian White	28	D	25	2	2	4	5	4	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	27	7.4	490	19:35	0.1	1.6	1.7	32	14	1	0	100

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Here is that 2014-15 defense

9	Danny DeKeyser	24	D	80	2	29	31	11	42	2	0	0	1	23	6	0	89	2.2	1674	20:56	1.6	4.4	6.0	88	74	0	0
20	Jonathan Ericsson	30	D	82	3	12	15	-5	70	3	0	0	0	11	0	1	82	3.7	1606	19:35	0.0	2.9	2.9	55	114	0	0
21	Jakub Kindl	27	D	35	5	8	13	2	22	3	2	0	0	3	5	0	54	9.3	557	15:55	1.3	1.3	2.7	25	31	0	0
22	Niklas Kronwall	34	D	80	9	35	44	-4	40	6	3	0	1	15	20	0	101	8.9	1907	23:50	3.6	3.6	7.2	106	91	1	0	100.0
23	Brian Lashoff	24	D	11	0	2	2	4	6	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	7	0.0	146	13:17	0.0	0.6	0.7	14	7	0	0
24	Alexey Marchenko	23	D	13	1	1	2	1	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	7	14.3	201	15:26	0.1	0.5	0.6	10	9	0	0
25	Xavier Ouellet	21	D	21	2	1	3	4	2	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	27	7.4	344	16:23	0.1	1.1	1.2	13	11	0	0
26	Kyle Quincey	29	D	73	3	15	18	10	77	3	0	0	0	14	0	1	90	3.3	1422	19:29	0.6	3.8	4.4	82	104	0	0
27	Brendan Smith	25	D	76	4	9	13	-2	68	4	0	0	1	7	2	0	88	4.5	1360	17:53	0.2	2.6	2.9	68	60	0	0
28	Marek Zidlicky	37	D	21	3	8	11	-2	14	0	3	0	1	3	5	0	27	11.1	379	18:02	1.1	0.6	1.7	17	19	0	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm sorry, but those aren't good players. Kronwall, DDK, and Ericsson were good but were also FAR below what Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, Stuart were.

And while Smith and Kindl stopped developing, they were okay players on these rosters. It wasn't all Dats+Z, but it was VERY heavily influenced by them. No matter how you slice it, those were not good defenses. They had bad depth. Babcock had his defensive shell, low-event hockey. That's how Detroit made it to the second round and got 100 points in 2014-15. He was able to get his players to run a tight ship on D. I mean, you're really selling Zetterberg and Datsyuk short and pumping the tires of some very mediocre defensemen to make the argument you're making.

The Wings were Babcock were a pull all the blood from the stone kind of team. But to finish, while guys like Kindl and Smith ended up stagnating and being worth a lot less than they were imagined to be, they were okay NHL defensemen for a little bit. Quincey was an okay NHL defenseman for a little bit. But I mean, the Wings got outscored by Anaheim in round 1 in 2012-13 (21-18). They were underdogs in that series. And they were MASSIVE underdogs against Chicago. That was one series that spun based on Datsyuk playing great and Howard playing great. You can say Chicago sleepwalked through the first four games... but I remember watching it and Howard was standing up very impressively against heavy pressure. It wasn't a fabulous defensive effort. Chicago was getting all kinds of chances all series and Howard was just playing great.

 

[Tirekicker]

He did adress it. Went hard after Suter, traded for Quincey, signed Dekeyser, signed Green.

I don't think you're making the point that you think you're making.

Look, I'm not gonna sit here and scream, "hE sHoUlD'vE tRaDeD fOr ErIk KaRlSsOn In 2013!" Let there be no confusion: That's not where I'm coming from. Where I *am* coming from is that we lost Rafalski and Lidstrom and our D -- and team -- never remotely recovered from the loss. Do I assign blame to Holland for this? Yep! Regardless of what's fair and what isn't fair, he failed to plug the hole that everyone knew he had to find a way to plug, lest the whole ship should sink to the bottom of the ocean. He didn't come anywhere close to plugging the hole and now the ship is stuck in the Mariana Trench.

I'm generally "pro-Holland"; I think he gets too much hate. But it's always bothered me that we struck out on every front re: the D problem. Didn't get Suter. Hronek is our first homegrown high-end defenseman since Kronwall. The less we say about the Quincey trade, the better. I liked the DeKeyser and Green signings, but neither player was ever going to be enough.

 

[TheClap]

He did adress it. Went hard after Suter, traded for Quincey, signed Dekeyser, signed Green.

It's hard as heck to adress defense. I don't know how you can say we "pretended everything was ok". What did you want? Trading all our picks and prospects for someone? Selling everything because we were now only a very good team instead of a great one? Because we only had a good #1D instead of the best in history?

One one hand you can say "why didn't we trade for Burns". On the other hand, one piece going the other way was a former top 10 pick. We simply didn't have that kind of asset. Even if Setoguchi wasn't playing amazing, top 10 picks generally carry with them a certain value for a long time. Same as we have now, even if Zadina only becomes a 20 goal scorer he's going to have trade value for a long time based on his potential. The more high picks you have, the more expendable 1st round picks you have, the easier it is to swing a big trade.



Reading stuff like this I can't help but wonder how the hell people think we made the playoffs, even made the 2nd round in 2013 and were a 100 point team in 2015?

And don't give me no garbage about "it was all Dats+Z" when teams like Chicago and LA struggle mightily despite their arguably even stronger core. And Toronto with all their core talent is garbage, with the same coach that got us to the playoffs those years.

You had Dats+Z. You got 50+ point secondary scoring with Tatar and Nyquist. You had Riley Sheahan and Justin Abdelkader's best season of their careers. You had Kronwall who was a legitimate top pairing defensemen. You had serviceable middle pairing guys like Dekeyser and Quincey to keep you mediocre, but you weren't going deep. They may have had 100 points in 2015... with 39 ROW and 14 loser points. 100 points isn't impressive anymore. If the Bruins don't collapse don't the stretch they're out of the playoffs. You had good goaltending from Howard for half the season, and outstanding goaltending from Mrazek when Howard shit the bed.

Not hard to see how they made the playoffs.

 

[Fil Larkmanthanasiou]

It would have actually been nice to have kept Jarnkrok considering his current contract and the role he can play. No, not a top sixer, but still a worthwhile hockey player.

Jarnkrok has scored 6 goals and 6 assists 19 games so far this year. That would make him tied for 3rd in goals and 4th on the Wings in points and Nashville has played 3 fewer games.

 

[Tirekicker]

Jarnkrok has scored 6 goals and 6 assists 19 games so far this year. That would make him tied for 3rd in goals and 4th on the Wings in points and Nashville has played 3 fewer games.

Granted, he's playing on a stronger team. But, yeah, it's not a huge stretch to say Jarnkrok would be one of our better players right now.

 

[Frk It]

Absolutely I am setting the bar extremely high. I expect the team to be able to succeed at finding good players. To me, that's their job. I think Holland and Yzerman would tell you as much too. Professional sports as a whole are a failure based business. So many times the great successes of teams in the league are more good fortune and the absence of failures on their end as opposed to the other team. However, my own opinion is that when you try to be bad (tanking, "rebuilding", etc. you're setting yourself back rather than giving yourself a leg up. If you're looking at a team and you're planning to be abjectly terrible for 3-5 years... there is something wrong in your planning. No team or roster is that poorly managed that 5 years is required to turn it around with competent management.

Now that we are consistently drafting in the top 10 and stockpiling some 2nd rounders, I think it is reasonable to *expect* this franchise to find some game-breakers.

Prior to that... not so much.

 

[ChrisReevesLegs]

LOL, I got done reading the contract and you're still here.

It's an accumulation of mistakes, not just one. But regardless, the team was gonna tank sooner or later, that is the reality of the salary cap era. Having assets to sell makes the rebuild process go faster. If Holland hadn't squandered assets, the team would still suck, but would probably have better/more prospecs.

Exactly my point. The team would still suck, but with an olli maata or something lol. Doesn't really make a huge difference... you guys totally overestimate the presence of one mediocre player.

Is the team any better in 2010 and 2011 and beyond with Kyle Quincey learning from Nick Lidstrom, instead of rolling with Meech and Ruslan Salei (RIP)? Probably. Does it make a difference in a 7 game series against the Sharks? Maybe.

Is the team better today if Holland uses the 1st round pick he spent to get him back on the same thing his protege Yzerman did? Considering we have no goalie for the future, absolutely. Would Olli Maatta be an upgrade over Trevor Daley, Bowey, Ericsson, McIlrath, Hicketts, Biega, and Nemeth? Yes. Is there a chance Holland blows that pick? Sure.

Is it ironic that you consider poor drafting to be the cause of the Wings downfall, but then also proceed to argue that trading one of their highest draft picks since 1991 to reaquire a player they gave away for nothing, wasn't a big deal? Yes. Yes it is.

Drafting was a downfall, but one Maata also wasn't gonna save us. Not sure why I have to explain that. Drafting for a number of years needed to be better on top of that year for us to make any kind of waves. IDK how that's not common sense for you.

20 years ago we drafted Zetterberg so wtf are you even talking about.

There was a ~6-7 year period where we truly struck out (05-12) and that has hurt us and continue to hurt us now.

And anyone who thinks drafting superstars while being the best team in the league is easy/realistic needs a reality check. We didn’t beat the odds, but pretty much no one does anymore.

Agreed borther, these kids are noobs lol

 

[Retire91]

I think this has been debated ad nauseam and a lot of the factors are really well known by most fans at this point. The trouble I have is when people defend holland for rebuild timing. Going for 25 years straight isn't and wasn't worth the depth of the hole it dug. The rebuild should have started immediately after Lidstrom retired. Full on trade assets for picks and prospects and go full youth.

The wings only strategy was to hit homeruns in the draft with the terrible draft placement that comes with being a playoff team. The wings got spoiled with a scouting edge on Russia and European players but that well dried up when the rest of the league's scouting caught up. Hell just this forum alone points out players as young as 16. You could see Kucherov coming a mile away just by following the prospects page. The wings haven't even drafted poorly in the last 10 years. They just finally drafted average instead of above average when they had the Eurasia scouting edge.

It was foolhardy to think that they could build a third core without doing any kind of rebuild and we had to endure 6-7 year of real gud **** hockey during the death of the streak and now another 4-5 more years of **** hockey while searching for a new core. Was it really worth it for 6-7 wild card playoff runs when there was realistically little chance to even make it to the second round? That is a hard no for me. The only real benefit of hitting bottom is that the man who orchestrated it is finally gone and the timing worked out to get Yzerman back.

 

[Gniwder]

Exactly my point. The team would still suck, but with an olli maata or something lol. Doesn't really make a huge difference... you guys totally overestimate the presence of one mediocre player.

Who are you calling "you guys"? I self identify as an asexual unicorn mermaid.

 

[kliq]

I think this has been debated ad nauseam and a lot of the factors are really well known by most fans at this point. The trouble I have is when people defend holland for rebuild timing. Going for 25 years straight isn't and wasn't worth the depth of the hole it dug. The rebuild should have started immediately after Lidstrom retired. Full on trade assets for picks and prospects and go full youth.

The wings only strategy was to hit homeruns in the draft with the terrible draft placement that comes with being a playoff team. The wings got spoiled with a scouting edge on Russia and European players but that well dried up when the rest of the league's scouting caught up. Hell just this forum alone points out players as young as 16. You could see Kucherov coming a mile away just by following the prospects page. The wings haven't even drafted poorly in the last 10 years. They just finally drafted average instead of above average when they had the Eurasia scouting edge.

It was foolhardy to think that they could build a third core without doing any kind of rebuild and we had to endure 6-7 year of real gud **** hockey during the death of the streak and now another 4-5 more years of **** hockey while searching for a new core. Was it really worth it for 6-7 wild card playoff runs when there was realistically little chance to even make it to the second round? That is a hard no for me. The only real benefit of hitting bottom is that the man who orchestrated it is finally gone and the timing worked out to get Yzerman back.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the issue will all of this is that there was zero chance that Mike Illitch would have ever gone for a rebuild in 2012, I don’t care who the GM is.

 

[TheClap]

Drafting was a downfall, but one Maata also wasn't gonna save us. Not sure why I have to explain that. Drafting for a number of years needed to be better on top of that year for us to make any kind of waves. IDK how that's not common sense for you.

I'm not arguing the Wings wouldn't still suck. I'm arguing the Wings would be better off and further along in the rebuild with a young, legitimate NHL caliber young defensemen, or Vezina caliber goalie. Look at what the addition of a Fabbri did. They still suck, but now the 2nd line looks serviceable and you have another young piece to build around for the future. It's one less position that needs to be filled.

Don't talk to me about common sense when you don't understand the point being made.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the issue will all of this is that there was zero chance that Mike Illitch would have ever gone for a rebuild in 2012, I don’t care who the GM is.

Ken Holland himself talked about needing to retool on the fly. The best way to do that by holding on to cheap YOUNG talent and keeping your draft picks. Not waiving it and then trading away your highest pick since 1991 to get that asset back.

 

[Retire91]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the issue will all of this is that there was zero chance that Mike Illitch would have ever gone for a rebuild in 2012, I don’t care who the GM is.

I think there is a chance you are right but it didn't change my feelings then and it doesn't change them now that it was a terrible direction for the team. It's also on Holland to think he could actually do it. Even under a constraining direction from ownership he still did a terrible job. He pretty much hadn't won a trade since Brad Stuart (although I am impressed he got a pick for Smith). And those contracts he signed. And the constant stream of vets one or two years before they retired and rentals to just squeeze into a wild card slot. Painful times to be a fan. People always talk about helm and abby barely talk about Weiss still being on the books, and pointless Nielsen was the player he signed to replace the fact that Weiss didn't work out lol.

 

[Tirekicker]

The trouble I have is when people defend holland for rebuild timing. Going for 25 years straight isn't and wasn't worth the depth of the hole it dug. The rebuild should have started immediately after Lidstrom retired. Full on trade assets for picks and prospects and go full youth.

You realize that going scorched earth can also put you in a deep, deep hole, right? That approach can very easily go very wrong in very many ways.

 

[MBH]

I was maybe being unfair. Ericsson was an adequate replacement for Stuart and he and Kronner made a good top pairing. Not great, but good.

Here is that 12-13 defense.

20	Carlo Colaiacovo	30	D	6	0	1	1	-4	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	12	0.0	113	18:55	0.0	-0.1	-0.1	10	12	0	0
21	Danny DeKeyser	22	D	11	0	1	1	4	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	15	0.0	199	18:03	-0.1	0.8	0.7	9	9	0	0
22	Jonathan Ericsson	28	D	45	3	10	13	6	29	3	0	0	1	10	0	0	34	8.8	960	21:19	0.6	2.8	3.5	40	67	0	0
23	Kent Huskins	33	D	11	0	0	0	-3	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0.0	169	15:21	-0.2	0.2	-0.1	17	15	0	0
24	Jakub Kindl	25	D	41	4	9	13	15	28	3	1	0	2	7	2	0	76	5.3	761	18:33	1.0	3.1	4.1	33	46	0	0
25	Niklas Kronwall	32	D	48	5	24	29	-5	44	3	2	0	2	10	14	0	67	7.5	1169	24:22	2.4	2.4	4.8	83	42	0	0
26	Brian Lashoff	22	D	31	1	4	5	-10	15	1	0	0	0	4	0	0	26	3.8	551	17:47	0.0	0.5	0.5	43	44	0	0
27	Kyle Quincey	27	D	36	1	2	3	7	18	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	36	2.8	692	19:13	-0.4	2.3	1.9	46	29	0	0
28	Brendan Smith	23	D	34	0	8	8	1	36	0	0	0	0	6	2	0	33	0.0	626	18:24	0.1	1.6	1.7	35	20	0	0
29	Ian White	28	D	25	2	2	4	5	4	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	27	7.4	490	19:35	0.1	1.6	1.7	32	14	1	0	100

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Here is that 2014-15 defense

9	Danny DeKeyser	24	D	80	2	29	31	11	42	2	0	0	1	23	6	0	89	2.2	1674	20:56	1.6	4.4	6.0	88	74	0	0
20	Jonathan Ericsson	30	D	82	3	12	15	-5	70	3	0	0	0	11	0	1	82	3.7	1606	19:35	0.0	2.9	2.9	55	114	0	0
21	Jakub Kindl	27	D	35	5	8	13	2	22	3	2	0	0	3	5	0	54	9.3	557	15:55	1.3	1.3	2.7	25	31	0	0
22	Niklas Kronwall	34	D	80	9	35	44	-4	40	6	3	0	1	15	20	0	101	8.9	1907	23:50	3.6	3.6	7.2	106	91	1	0	100.0
23	Brian Lashoff	24	D	11	0	2	2	4	6	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	7	0.0	146	13:17	0.0	0.6	0.7	14	7	0	0
24	Alexey Marchenko	23	D	13	1	1	2	1	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	7	14.3	201	15:26	0.1	0.5	0.6	10	9	0	0
25	Xavier Ouellet	21	D	21	2	1	3	4	2	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	27	7.4	344	16:23	0.1	1.1	1.2	13	11	0	0
26	Kyle Quincey	29	D	73	3	15	18	10	77	3	0	0	0	14	0	1	90	3.3	1422	19:29	0.6	3.8	4.4	82	104	0	0
27	Brendan Smith	25	D	76	4	9	13	-2	68	4	0	0	1	7	2	0	88	4.5	1360	17:53	0.2	2.6	2.9	68	60	0	0
28	Marek Zidlicky	37	D	21	3	8	11	-2	14	0	3	0	1	3	5	0	27	11.1	379	18:02	1.1	0.6	1.7	17	19	0	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm sorry, but those aren't good players. Kronwall, DDK, and Ericsson were good but were also FAR below what Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, Stuart were.

And while Smith and Kindl stopped developing, they were okay players on these rosters. It wasn't all Dats+Z, but it was VERY heavily influenced by them. No matter how you slice it, those were not good defenses. They had bad depth. Babcock had his defensive shell, low-event hockey. That's how Detroit made it to the second round and got 100 points in 2014-15. He was able to get his players to run a tight ship on D. I mean, you're really selling Zetterberg and Datsyuk short and pumping the tires of some very mediocre defensemen to make the argument you're making.

The Wings were Babcock were a pull all the blood from the stone kind of team. But to finish, while guys like Kindl and Smith ended up stagnating and being worth a lot less than they were imagined to be, they were okay NHL defensemen for a little bit. Quincey was an okay NHL defenseman for a little bit. But I mean, the Wings got outscored by Anaheim in round 1 in 2012-13 (21-18). They were underdogs in that series. And they were MASSIVE underdogs against Chicago. That was one series that spun based on Datsyuk playing great and Howard playing great. You can say Chicago sleepwalked through the first four games... but I remember watching it and Howard was standing up very impressively against heavy pressure. It wasn't a fabulous defensive effort. Chicago was getting all kinds of chances all series and Howard was just playing great.

Babcock f***ed up that Chicago series with the nonsensical lines..
Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Franzen -- the line that killed the Wings.
1) Franzen ALWAYS played more effectively with Zetterberg than Datsyujk.
2) Abdelkader was a god damn anchor on that line. Totally useless.

I think Z played with Flip/Cleary.

I think Babcock also bears some responsibility for the way Ericsson, Kindl and Smith turned out.
All three guys came up from the AHL or out of the draft with fairly high expectations.
But Babcock refused to play to their strengths - often benching them for Salei, Markov etc etc etc.