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

[kliq]

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.



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.

I was responding to the idea of completely rebuilding and trading everyone after the 2012, my post had nothing to do with KFQ.

 

[kliq]

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.

Again, I am not discussing any one particular contract or trade, no doubt those are on Holland. I am referencing the idea of blowing it up after 2012.

 

[MBH]

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.

I wouldn't have traded away all my assets.
The following trades/signings wouldn't have been made if I had my way.
Todd Bertuzzi's return.
Holmstrom's last contract.
Cleary's contract.
Kyle Quincey trade.
Samuelsson resigning.
Salei signing.
Colaicovo.
Drew Miller resigning.
Alfredsson signing.
Weiss signing.
Modano signing.
Legwand trade
Cole trade.
Zidlicky trade.
Ericsson - 6 year deal.
Howard - 6 year deal
Abdelkader - 7 year deal
Helm - 5 year deal
Nielsen - 6 year deal.

These "around the edges" positions would have been better off used on youth and development.
Guys like Ericsson, Abby, Howard, etc - could have been kept around on shorter, cheaper deals. But I would have let them walk.

One of the main reasons the Blues were able to win the cup is because they let David Backes go. We couldn't let Ericsson and Abdelkader go. But the Blues can let Backes go?

I wouldn't have traded D/Z or Kronwall.
But I definitely wouldn't have been shy about replacing overpriced grinders with kids and cheap UFAs and wire pickups.

End of the day, we're probably in about the same spot. But we'd have had a lot more flexibility.

 

[Retire91]

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.

Blowing it up is never a guarantee but its also the 99% way of securing the talent necessary to create an actual cup window. The 1% method being Boston when you can sign a UFA Vezina goalie and have a 6'9 norris defenesman with all star forward depth and a 2OA pick floating around their lineup. So are you saying wings were going to pull a Boston and go all the way surrounding Dats, Zetts, Kronner, Nyquist, Tartar, Cleary Helm, Abby, Quincy, Erickson with the necessary talent to open that window? That is a pretty big 55 gallon void to fill from FA

So I am not saying blowing it up is a garuntee but I am saying going for it with no rebuild strategy other than hope I hit a deep draft home run is a way to predictably run a team into the ground. And for what? The wings never had a chance at realistically winning another cup with that post lidstrom roster.

Not going to be a sensationalist and saying blowing it up was the only option, sure keep your players and let them retire a wing, but you don't trade for rentals and fill your roster with stop gap mediocrity stopping your kids from taking a shot in the NHL. What good does that do anyone other than put a few more wild card appearances on the books and then get DESTROYED by real teams.

 

[izlez]

Blowing it up is never a guarantee but its also the 99% way of securing the talent necessary to create an actual cup window. The 1% method being Boston when you can sign a UFA Vezina goalie and have a 6'9 norris defenesman with all star forward depth and a 2OA pick floating around their lineup.

Source?

 

[kook10]

I think people seem to underplay the effect of having assets like Fischer, Franzen, even Raffi and Grigorenko just evaporate.

 

[MBH]

I think people seem to underplay the effect of having assets like Fischer, Franzen, even Raffi and Grigorenko just evaporate.

Raffi was old.
But every team has those issues. Maybe not dramatic heart attacks on the bench or car crashes... but injuries and concussions and old guys wearing down?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Babcock ****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.

No, the fact that Chicago was a vastly better team ****ed up that series. Howard stole game 3 to put them in the catbird seat and then they played well in game 4. After that, Chicago's better talent just won out as they were finally able to get their stars a little bit away from the Wings shutdown line.

***** about the lines all you want, but the plan was pretty clearly to have Zetterberg be the defensive matchup on the big guns and allow Datsyuk and I guess Franzen to drive the top line when they needed scoring. And through 4 games, that worked. As soon as it came back to Chicago for game 5, Quennville finally broke Zetterberg's blanket coverage on them by having the last change and the series turned on its head.

Franzen ALWAYS played more effectively with Zetterberg over Datsyuk smacks of confirmation bias. And even if he did, there are logical reasons why you wouldn't go "this guy plays best with this guy in all situations" when constructing lines.

 

[MBH]

No, the fact that Chicago was a vastly better team ****ed up that series. Howard stole game 3 to put them in the catbird seat and then they played well in game 4. After that, Chicago's better talent just won out as they were finally able to get their stars a little bit away from the Wings shutdown line.

***** about the lines all you want, but the plan was pretty clearly to have Zetterberg be the defensive matchup on the big guns and allow Datsyuk and I guess Franzen to drive the top line when they needed scoring. And through 4 games, that worked. As soon as it came back to Chicago for game 5, Quennville finally broke Zetterberg's blanket coverage on them by having the last change and the series turned on its head.

Franzen ALWAYS played more effectively with Zetterberg over Datsyuk smacks of confirmation bias. And even if he did, there are logical reasons why you wouldn't go "this guy plays best with this guy in all situations" when constructing lines.

Man, where ever the Red Wings lose, there's TSweeney with full-throated defense for it.
Cheers, man.
But I'm not going to spend lots of time arguing about the nonsensical Babcock lines - lines that are still costing the franchise today.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Raffi was old.
But every team has those issues. Maybe not dramatic heart attacks on the bench or car crashes... but injuries and concussions and old guys wearing down?

The whole point of him bringing that up is that the Wings lost a bonafide superstar D (Konstantinov), a burgeoning top pairing D (Fischer), and a potential top 6 forward who was looking good (Grigorenko) for nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. Teams have old guys wearing down and getting hurt, but the Wings had three very high quality assets just vanish in addition to normal aging and injuries from hockey. Those departures were ones that aren't the type that "every team has".

Fischer would have been a top pairing D during the time when the Wings were trying to transition from Lidstrom and maybe if you have a pairing of him and Kronner, Ericsson never gets overused or Quincey doesn't get traded for in 2012 and we take an Olli Maatta or Vasilevskiy.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Man, where ever the Red Wings lose, there's TSweeney with full-throated defense for it.
Cheers, man.
But I'm not going to spend lots of time arguing about the nonsensical Babcock lines - lines that are still costing the franchise today.

It's just more that sometimes you lose to a better team. It's got nothing to do with "THAT COACH DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO COACH!"

Pray tell, how the **** are those lines still costing the team today? Because Datsyuk used Abdelkader as a backboard for goals? Babcock is gone my man. His decisions have no bearing on the Wings anymore. And as evidenced by Blashill, they're going to keep running Abby out there up high on the roster.

 

[IceNeophyte]

I love when my sports teams accept mediocrity.

This is the appropriate answer. Tanking is for pansies.

 

[Retire91]

Source?

Personal opinion never said otherwise But there is a string of cup winners overwhelmingly slanting rebuild over UFA if one cares to look.

I think people seem to underplay the effect of having assets like Fischer, Franzen, even Raffi and Grigorenko just evaporate.

I think its more than fair to add Konstantinov to that list as well.

 

[ChrisReevesLegs]

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.

Spot on. The "hopefully we pull another Zberg/Dats out of a hat" was going on. But sports are a cycle though, and I think the Illitch's were always going to GO FOR IT as long as Zberg and Dats were on the roster. When that changed they began accepting the rebuild. Hard to fault them for that really. It's not the best plan when thinking 10-20 years out, but then who really knows what 10-20 years out looks like. We could end up like the Sabres/Laffs in 20 years....

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

Guys AND unicorn mermaids sorry (not human women though, I was specifically and purposefully excluding them)

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.

People often forget Holland and Yzerman have their bosses too. When the rebuild was finally embraced Holland did a darn good job at flipping guys for picks. It's sorta a shame Holland's career in Detroit was ended and tarnished by ownerships streak.

This is the appropriate answer. Tanking is for pansies.

This guy gets it

 

[Tirekicker]

I wouldn't have traded away all my assets.
The following trades/signings wouldn't have been made if I had my way.
Todd Bertuzzi's return.
Holmstrom's last contract.
Cleary's contract.
Kyle Quincey trade.
Samuelsson resigning.
Salei signing.
Colaicovo.
Drew Miller resigning.
Alfredsson signing.
Weiss signing.
Modano signing.
Legwand trade
Cole trade.
Zidlicky trade.
Ericsson - 6 year deal.
Howard - 6 year deal
Abdelkader - 7 year deal
Helm - 5 year deal
Nielsen - 6 year deal.

These "around the edges" positions would have been better off used on youth and development.
Guys like Ericsson, Abby, Howard, etc - could have been kept around on shorter, cheaper deals. But I would have let them walk.

One of the main reasons the Blues were able to win the cup is because they let David Backes go. We couldn't let Ericsson and Abdelkader go. But the Blues can let Backes go?

I wouldn't have traded D/Z or Kronwall.
But I definitely wouldn't have been shy about replacing overpriced grinders with kids and cheap UFAs and wire pickups.

End of the day, we're probably in about the same spot. But we'd have had a lot more flexibility.

Right, I think we're mostly of the same mind on this. I'm not necessarily saying Holland shouldn't have played things differently than he ultimately did, I'm just saying I don't find the "We should've nuked the team from orbit in 2012 and taken our chances in the post-apocalyptic wilderness" line of reasoning to be particularly persuasive.

There's a middle ground between "RIDE OR DIE!" and "BLOW IT UP!" Do I think Holland leaned a little too hard into "RIDE OR DIE!"? Sure, I guess. What we're seeing now with the Wings is basically death by a thousand cuts. A little thing here, a little thing there, and all of a sudden the team is locked in the cellar for half a decade.

The thing that rubs me wrong about the post-Lidstrom years is that Holland seemingly wanted to have his cake and eat it. Which is fine, in theory. But you have to deliver.

He'd say there's no hockey store...and he signed big UFA deals.

He'd say this is a draft-and-develop league...and our drafting machinery failed to give us the players we needed within the window of time that we needed them...and he'd hand out picks like candy...and he'd trade a good young player like Jarnkrok for a rental...and our player development machinery didn't start thinking, "Y'know, maybe we're taking too long to get these kids ready for the NHL," until very recently.

He'd say trades are hard...and then he goes to Edmonton and one of the first things he does is trade Lucic for Neal.

So, yeah, I can absolutely understand where people are coming from when they say Holland badly mismanaged the "retool." But blowing the team up all at once? For me, that's a really tough sell.

 

[ChrisReevesLegs]

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.

And if we had added a Maata or Vasi that year there's a good chance we don't get Mantha or Larkin in preceding years. It's butterfly effect. The only thing worse than tanking 100% in the NHL is mediocrity. If you don't like the mediocre late streak years, I would argue adding a decent piece in 2012 may have only served to extend that...

 

[MBH]

It's just more that sometimes you lose to a better team. It's got nothing to do with "THAT COACH DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO COACH!"

Pray tell, how the **** are those lines still costing the team today? Because Datsyuk used Abdelkader as a backboard for goals? Babcock is gone my man. His decisions have no bearing on the Wings anymore. And as evidenced by Blashill, they're going to keep running Abby out there up high on the roster.

Sometimes you lose to a better team....
Sometimes you take a 3-1 series lead and can't figure out how to get another win.

As for Abby - he got his 7 year, $30+million deal thanks to Babcock.
Helm got his 5 year $20M deal thanks to Babcock.

These guys had ZERO business riding shotgun next to Datsyuk and/or Zetterberg.

Had Babcock simply left them where they belonged - Glendening's 4-year, $7.2M deal would look f***ing generous for these guys.

 

[MBH]

Right, I think we're mostly of the same mind on this. I'm not necessarily saying Holland shouldn't have played things differently than he ultimately did, I'm just saying I don't find the "We should've nuked the team from orbit in 2012 and taken our chances in the post-apocalyptic wilderness" line of reasoning to be particularly persuasive.

There's a middle ground between "RIDE OR DIE!" and "BLOW IT UP!" Do I think Holland leaned a little too hard into "RIDE OR DIE!"? Sure, I guess. What we're seeing now with the Wings is basically death by a thousand cuts. A little thing here, a little thing there, and all of a sudden the team is locked in the cellar for half a decade.

The thing that rubs me wrong about the post-Lidstrom years is that Holland seemingly wanted to have his cake and eat it. Which is fine, in theory. But you have to deliver.

He'd say there's no hockey store...and he signed big UFA deals.

He'd say this is a draft-and-develop league...and our drafting machinery failed to give us the players we needed within the window of time that we needed them...and he'd hand out picks like candy...and he'd trade a good young player like Jarnkrok for a rental...and our player development machinery didn't start thinking, "Y'know, maybe we're taking too long to get these kids ready for the NHL," until very recently.

He'd say trades are hard...and then he goes to Edmonton and one of the first things he does is trade Lucic for Neal.

So, yeah, I can absolutely understand where people are coming from when they say Holland badly mismanaged the "retool." But blowing the team up all at once? For me, that's a really tough sell.

I think after 2011, at the latest, Holland should have started talking about rebuild on the fly.
Truthfully, losing Hossa, Samuelsson and Hudler after 09 might have been a great time to start doing that - even if our prospects were pretty cruddy then.

But Holland didn't stop trading away prospects and picks until 2014 or 15 or so. Kept bringing in veterans.

He was about 5-7 years too late, even as Chicago was winning cups while inserting no-name rookies - not because always because they were good - but because they could do simple things and do it for under $1M.

 

[izlez]

Personal opinion never said otherwise But there is a string of cup winners overwhelmingly slanting rebuild over UFA if one cares to look.

There is an overwhelming number of teams that have "rebuilt" and have top 5 picks on their roster (just about all of them), so of course the Stanley Cup champions will have some, just like the bottom 5 teams in the league.

You already brought up Boston. San Jose, Nashville, Vegas, St Louis have "tanked" much less than the league average, yet have been pretty consistent in competing for cups.

Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, Colorado have "tanked" much more than the league average and still find themselves consistently at the bottom of the league

 

[MBH]

There is an overwhelming number of teams that have "rebuilt" and have top 5 picks on their roster (just about all of them), so of course the Stanley Cup champions will have some, just like the bottom 5 teams in the league.

You already brought up Boston. San Jose, Nashville, Vegas, St Louis have "tanked" much less than the league average, yet have been pretty consistent in competing for cups.

Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida, Colorado have "tanked" much more than the league average and still find themselves consistently at the bottom of the league

Well, don't look now. Because Holland tried to avoid the tank - and guess where we are for the fourth straight year.
And realistically, we've probably got a few more years here.

 

[Tirekicker]

Blowing it up is never a guarantee but its also the 99% way of securing the talent necessary to create an actual cup window.

I'm gonna need to see some sources plz.

So I am not saying blowing it up is a garuntee but I am saying going for it with no rebuild strategy other than hope I hit a deep draft home run is a way to predictably run a team into the ground.

OK, but the alternative you're proposing is "Burn it to the ground and ice a roster made up entirely of kids and hope for the best."

Not going to be a sensationalist and saying blowing it up was the only option, sure keep your players and let them retire a wing, but you don't trade for rentals and fill your roster with stop gap mediocrity stopping your kids from taking a shot in the NHL. What good does that do anyone other than put a few more wild card appearances on the books and then get DESTROYED by real teams.

So, just to make sure I understand where you're coming from... You *don't* want a playoff team that "gets DESTROYED by real teams" (2013? 2015?), but you *do* want a team full of kids with no insulation and no veteran leadership and no mentors, and you'd expect that team to *not* get DESTROYED by real teams...? Or is it that we're classifying getting DESTROYED by real teams as "progress" when it's kids who are getting their confidence and careers destroyed, all for the purpose of drafting some younger kids who *might* be gamechangers...?

I mean, again, I'm not saying The Holland Plan was perfect, I'm saying the extreme opposite approach is every bit as suicidal as The Holland Plan supposedly was.

I believe Holland needed to bend a little more than he did. He needed to be a little more flexible and a little more willing to venture "outside the box" (as Jimmy D would put it). We can all agree on that much, yeah?

 

[Retire91]

you can keep spinning it any way you want a holland defender is gonna holland defend. There is a way to build a team with the best odds of success. Just because it does not "GUARANTEE" success and just because there are a "FEW EXAMPLES" of success that didn't follow that path doesn't mean there isn't a best course. I can swim to hawaii and odds are I won't even make it, but if I did we all stop traveling by plane right?

I would gladly watch season after season of kids developing even if they get DESTROYED because that means the team is trying to build a future. Stop gap declining hockey is not fun to watch or root for.

 

[ChrisReevesLegs]

I'm gonna need to see some sources plz.



OK, but the alternative you're proposing is "Burn it to the ground and ice a roster made up entirely of kids and hope for the best."

So, just to make sure I understand where you're coming from... You *don't* want a playoff team that "gets DESTROYED by real teams" (2013? 2015?), but you *do* want a team full of kids with no insulation and no veteran leadership and no mentors, and you'd expect that team to *not* get DESTROYED by real teams...? Or is it that we're classifying getting DESTROYED by real teams as "progress" when it's kids who are getting their confidence and careers destroyed, all for the purpose of drafting some younger kids who *might* be gamechangers...?

I mean, again, I'm not saying The Holland Plan was perfect, I'm saying the extreme opposite approach is every bit as suicidal as The Holland Plan supposedly was.

I believe Holland needed to bend a little more than he did. He needed to be a little more flexible and a little more willing to venture "outside the box" (as Jimmy D would put it). We can all agree on that much, yeah?

The true problem with Holland, wasn't the plan persay, but the creative vision IMHO. He lost that touch, and Yzerman has brought that back.

- Signing useless stop gap vets like Nemeth and Fil to insulate the kids = typical Holland move, showing Yzerman and Holland generally had the same plan
- Trading for Fabbri, Biega, and Perlini = innovative move Holland never would have attempted

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Sometimes you lose to a better team....
Sometimes you take a 3-1 series lead and can't figure out how to get another win.

As for Abby - he got his 7 year, $30+million deal thanks to Babcock.
Helm got his 5 year $20M deal thanks to Babcock.

These guys had ZERO business riding shotgun next to Datsyuk and/or Zetterberg.

Had Babcock simply left them where they belonged - Glendening's 4-year, $7.2M deal would look ****ing generous for these guys.

To put Abby and Helm's contract on Babcock is frankly ridiculous. (unless you're being sarcastic and I missed it?)

Nevermind that Holland was the GM and so it's ultimately his responsibility to sign players, the reasoning that it's Babcock's fault requires Holland to be dumber than everyone in the hockey community who knew those contracts were bad before the ink was dry.

Babcock's utilization of Abdelkader and Helm didn't magically trick Holland into handing out terrible contracts.

 

[ChrisReevesLegs]

you can keep spinning it any way you want a holland defender is gonna holland defend. There is a way to build a team with the best odds of success. Just because it does not "GUARANTEE" success and just because there are a "FEW EXAMPLES" of success that didn't follow that path doesn't mean there isn't a best course. I can swim to hawaii and odds are I won't even make it, but if I did we all stop traveling by plane right?

You're completely limited if you think there is only one best course of action. In reality there are more than a few nuances involved and some of that is stop-gaps.

I would gladly watch season after season of kids developing even if they get DESTROYED because that means the team is trying to build a future. Stop gap declining hockey is not fun to watch or root for.

Watching kids get DESTROYED is just as "not fun" to watch as stop gaps getting DESTROYED IMHO. That's not why I disagree with you though... Thrusting kids into unstructured leaderless rosters is a recipe to ruin their development and destroy their confidence and it generally creates a place and culture where no one wants to be.