Speculation: Is it time for Holland to step down?

[Kronwalled55]

He did a good job getting a team (that had a lot of high draft picks) up and into the spotlight, but after his cup win the team failed to reach the level of contender again.

I'm not sure why my criticism of Shero has to be met with "Well he is better than Holland." Are we really so desperate we are going to lower our standards?

I disagree with the bolded part since they are always a top finisher in the East, but I think both of them are similar in one regard. Both fail(ed) to address holes in their respective teams. With Pittsburgh, it was always goaltending and to a lesser extent the defense. Our defense has been a weak point since Lidstrom left and it still remains relatively the same year after year.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

too be fair, if the criticsm for shero is he inherited a team of lottery picks then shouldnt we say during that exact same time period holland got to have a team filled with lidstrom, datsuyuk, zetterberg and kronwall?

souldnt we exclude both mens starting points and only look at what they did from day one of sheros tenure onward vs hollands work from that exact day onward and exclude any and all players who came before then?

That doesn't affect whether Shero is a suitable GM for the Detroit Red Wings. If Holland is gone, he is irrelevant.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

That doesn't affect whether Shero is a suitable GM for the Detroit Red Wings. If Holland is gone, he is irrelevant.

who is irrelavnt?

i am saying, if the knock on shero for his work the last 7 years is the starting point he had, then shouldnt holland be held to that exact same standard for his work the last seven years AND the starting point he had?

so instead, lets just look at each mans actual moves/decisions the last seven years only, exclude all players or moves made before that and make informed comparisions from there

so no crosby or mallkin talk and thus no datsyuk or zetterberg or lidstrom talk

 

[detredWINgs]

He did a good job getting a team (that had a lot of high draft picks) up and into the spotlight, but after his cup win the team failed to reach the level of contender again.

I'm not sure why my criticism of Shero has to be met with "Well he is better than Holland." Are we really so desperate we are going to lower our standards?

Choose your words better then. You posited when was the last time he's done something. And the fact is, he's done more than Holland has in the past 5 years.

This is more sour grapes. Shero has done plenty good, particularly in areas that Holland fails at. I think he'd be a huge asset in an advisor role to Holland. They could really balance each other out.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

who is irrelavnt?

i am saying, if the knock on shero for his work the last 7 years is the starting point he had, then shouldnt holland be held to that exact same standard for his work the last seven years AND the starting point he had?

so instead, lets just look at each mans actual moves/decisions the last seven years only, exclude all players or moves made before that and make informed comparisions from there

so no crosby or mallkin talk and thus no datsyuk or zetterberg or lidstrom talk

If Holland is replaced, it doesn't matter what he did. He is gone, therefore irrelevant.

Choose your words better then. You posited when was the last time he's done something. And the fact is, he's done more than Holland has in the past 5 years.

This is more sour grapes. Shero has done plenty good, particularly in areas that Holland fails at. I think he'd be a huge asset in an advisor role to Holland. They could really balance each other out.

It's weird that people are using Holland as the standard. "We are okay with a GM as long as they do only more than what Holland has done in recent years."

I want a GM that I think can make the team better, not one that is not quite as bad at his job as Holland. And sour grapes? Why would I have sour grapes over a GM? Did he say something anti-Detroit? Did he take a cheapshot on someone? What do I have to be mad about regarding Shero?

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

If Holland is replaced, it doesn't matter what he did. He is gone, therefore irrelevant.

what

sorry, did i say that it does?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

what

sorry, did i say that it does?

So if Holland is irrelevant, why a direct comparison?

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

So if Holland is irrelevant, why a direct comparison?

i never brought up shero and i never once said Holland himself is irrelevant

someone else did when somebody had said who would we replace holland with and asked for names.

once sheros name was brought up, it was discounted by somebody because his work started with having crosby and malkin and so its not fair to compare him to holland, favourably choosing to forget who holland had to work with during that exact same period in time

and all i said was inorder to have a proper and fair evaluation then simply disregard who both men had to work with during that period of time both men were NHL GM's and when you do that, looking solely at the moves/decisions made by both men that occured only during the last 5-7 years then Shero looks better then Holland

you're pulling at strings man

 

[ArGarBarGar]

i never brought up shero and i never once said Holland himself is irrelevant

someone else did when somebody had said who would we replace holland with and asked for names.

once sheros name was brought up, it was discounted by somebody because his work started with having crosby and malkin and so its not fair to compare him to holland, favourably choosing to forget who holland had to work with during that exact same period in time

and all i said was inorder to have a proper and fair evaluation then simply disregard who both men had to work with during that period of time both men were NHL GM's and when you do that, looking solely at the moves/decisions made by both men that occured only during the last 5-7 years then Shero looks better then Holland

you're pulling at strings man

I don't think anyone discounted his ability simply because of his draft picks. I for one cited them as a factor and gave him his due for bringing the team up and winning a cup there. My issue is that he failed to keep the team as a contender (one Conference Finals appearance where they were swept) afterwards, which led to him being fired.

I'm not pulling at anything. You did bring up Shero and I don't think that we should base a new GM hire on Holland's recent years. If someone is okay with a GM because "Well, at least he did something, other than Holland", that someone has their standards way too low, in my opinion.

 

[Crymson]

I spent all of yesterday evening furious at Holland, went to bed angry, and woke up angry.

He is incompetent. He absolutely does not have what it takes to make this team succeed, and he would rather operate as a fringe team than take any risks. His methods are obsolete, and he refuses to change them. He responded to clear evidence that Detroit is no longer a desirable destination for UFAs by, with his signing of Quincey, sticking with the exact methods that brought this about. Before that agonizing event, there was, at least, some hope that things would change. It's patently obvious now that change will never come with Holland at the helm.

**** him. I've joined the group that wishes Yzerman was the GM of this team.

 

[Spitfire11]

Resigning Samuelson 2 years ago was it for me. Utterly inexcusable stupidity.

Maybe you could put some of the blame on pro scouting which has done a horrible job recently at evaluating NHL players

 

[Crymson]

Resigning Samuelson 2 years ago was it for me. Utterly inexcusable stupidity.

He's utterly risk-averse, and his solution to the failure of his plans is invariably to turn to familiar, veteran players over younger players with more potential. Yesterday it was Quincey. In 2012 it was Quincey and Samuelsson. In 2009 it was Bertuzzi and Williams. He simply cannot deal with the unknown or the uncertain, and he will stay with the familiar even when it is patently inferior. That extends fully to his resistance to giving shots to younger players over veterans, regardless of if the latter are obviously superior to the former. The utility of a youth movement became very obvious in 2013, yet he returned to the ineffectual veterans the very next season. The youngsters unequivocally saved the 2013-2014 season from being an abject failure, yet still he remains averse to such change; even when the vital, unequivocal importance of the likes of Nyquist and Tatar had already become patently obvious, he openly said that kids were not the answer. He prefers stagnation and mediocrity to the exploration of new ground, and he ignores glaring signs that change is necessary; he'd rather delude himself than accept the reality that his current methods are ineffective, regardless of the abundant signs that this is the case.

If the previous five offseasons hadn't made all of this obvious, yesterday certainly did; he refused to acknowledge the reality that the events of the day had made obvious; and, instead of seeking a new course, he re-signed an underperforming defenseman, whose two-plus seasons with this team could only be called absolutely putrid, simply because he was a familiar quantity rather than because he deserved it. It has become an old story.

He's not fit to be GM anymore. We can only hope that the Ilitch family will wise up to this sooner rather than later. Enough is enough. I'm still so ****ing furious. Knowing what I know now, I'd have been perfectly content missing the playoffs had it resulted in this clown getting fired.

 

[SirloinUB]

Resigning Samuelson 2 years ago was it for me. Utterly inexcusable stupidity.

Maybe you could put some of the blame on pro scouting which has done a horrible job recently at evaluating NHL players

I believe this is the biggest problem with the team right now.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

If Holland is replaced, it doesn't matter what he did. He is gone, therefore irrelevant.



It's weird that people are using Holland as the standard. "We are okay with a GM as long as they do only more than what Holland has done in recent years."

I want a GM that I think can make the team better, not one that is not quite as bad at his job as Holland. And sour grapes? Why would I have sour grapes over a GM? Did he say something anti-Detroit? Did he take a cheapshot on someone? What do I have to be mad about regarding Shero?

Holland satisfies this standard?

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

My issue is that he failed to keep the team as a contender (one Conference Finals appearance where they were swept) afterwards, which led to him being fired.

If someone is okay with a GM because "Well, at least he did something, other than Holland", that someone has their standards way too low, in my opinion.

how many conference finals has holland brought us to during that same period? why isnt he held to that same standard, shouldnt he then be fired if shero was for that same failure?

has holland done a better job then shero at keeping the red wings a contender?

i tend to think that the person who says "just beacsue he hasent made the team better its ok because he hasent made them much worse" has their standards way too low, in my opinion

 

[redwings85]

Nope. Talent goes where they want to play. If players decided to play outside Detroit that's not KHs fault. Has he made the odd "mistake". Sure, but then again what GM hasn't made mistakes.

 

[Shaman464]

Nope. Talent goes where they want to play. If players decided to play outside Detroit that's not KHs fault. Has he made the odd "mistake". Sure, but then again what GM hasn't made mistakes.

Quit blaming the city. The end all be all is Holland has shown 0 commitment to contend in half a decade. Some of these players have only been in the league that long. Would you want to sign a multi-year contract with a team that hasn't shown any will to compete for most of your adult life?

 

[dtones520]

Look, I'm as disappointed as anyone with how yesterday went down and with how the past few years have went, but still looking at the big picture of where we stand right now I'm not as down on Holland as most are. The positives start with the fact that we have traded only one top prospect over the past 6 years. So everyone we have said no to trading because we were to high on them is here and is NHL ready or is very close to it. Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Pulkkinen, Sheahan, Sproul, Oullett, Mrazek, etc are all still here and can, potentially be the future faces of this franchise. If they continue progressing like they have, we do have legit talent here. It also means, especially at forward, we have pieces to trade, as there are too many players for too few spots.

We also don't have many bad contracts anymore. Other than Franzen and, maybe, Zetterberg we aren't looking at any real albatross contracts. Which means we are in a very good place cap wise. If our prospects continue to progress next year and our vets stay healthy, I still think we will have a solid team next year and if we can make a little run, we should be looked at more seriously by free agents. There is just a lot of uncertainty right now with where we are trending.

Does that mean Holland doesn't need to change his tactics and adjust? Absolutely not. But he hasn't left us in a god awful position going forward here. He hasn't even left us in a bad position. We have a team, with our current roster, that can still contend to make the playoffs and there is a lot of time yet to make roster. Ives to improve us into more of a cup contender.

 

[Shaman464]

Look, I'm as disappointed as anyone with how yesterday went down and with how the past few years have went, but still looking at the big picture of where we stand right now I'm not as down on Holland as most are. The positives start with the fact that we have traded only one top prospect over the past 6 years. So everyone we have said no to trading because we were to high on them is here and is NHL ready or is very close to it. Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Pulkkinen, Sheahan, Sproul, Oullett, Mrazek, etc are all still here and can, potentially be the future faces of this franchise. If they continue progressing like they have, we do have legit talent here. It also means, especially at forward, we have pieces to trade, as there are too many players for too few spots.

We also don't have many bad contracts anymore. Other than Franzen and, maybe, Zetterberg we aren't looking at any real albatross contracts. Which means we are in a very good place cap wise. If our prospects continue to progress next year and our vets stay healthy, I still think we will have a solid team next year and if we can make a little run, we should be looked at more seriously by free agents. There is just a lot of uncertainty right now with where we are trending.

Does that mean Holland doesn't need to change his tactics and adjust? Absolutely not. But he hasn't left us in a god awful position going forward here. He hasn't even left us in a bad position. We have a team, with our current roster, that can still contend to make the playoffs and there is a lot of time yet to make roster. Ives to improve us into more of a cup contender.

If every prospect hit their ceiling and Zetterberg and Datsyuk don't regress or get injured at all, and if the young kids that already are on the team don't slump, and if every team that has improved on paper don't make expectations, then yes, this team is a contender.

 

[Crymson]

Nope. Talent goes where they want to play. If players decided to play outside Detroit that's not KHs fault. Has he made the odd "mistake". Sure, but then again what GM hasn't made mistakes.

I guess the fact that he has created a team that has failed to make any progress toward contender status over the past five offseasons doesn't matter, huh? It's perfectly his fault if players do not want to play for this organization. Back in 2009, players were thrilled at the prospect of joining the Wings. Now the Wings are no longer perennial contenders, and that they are instead far from it and have not improved whatsoever in that category for five years.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

how many conference finals has holland brought us to during that same period? why isnt he held to that same standard, shouldnt he then be fired if shero was for that same failure?

has holland done a better job then shero at keeping the red wings a contender?

i tend to think that the person who says "just beacsue he hasent made the team better its ok because he hasent made them much worse" has their standards way too low, in my opinion

You are comparing the two, when I have already told you numerous times this discussion is based on Holland no longer being a part of the organization, and not once have I made an attempt to excuse or defend Holland in this thread.

Also your last sentence doesn't make any sense. I never said anything like that, and your attempt to use similar phrasing as a means to be clever doesn't help.

Holland satisfies this standard?

No, and I never said that. I'm talking about a replacement, here.

 

[Goalie guy]

Like I have said he stayed in charge for 5 yrs to long! The guys who should have replaced him saw what he was doing and left. Do any of you really think Yzerman is going to leave a team he has built to come back here? Or Nill for that matter? Time to start looking for someone to do the job! Scotty maybe just maybe? I wish but really doubt it.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

You are comparing the two, when I have already told you numerous times this discussion is based on Holland no longer being a part of the organization, and not once have I made an attempt to excuse or defend Holland in this thread.

Also your last sentence doesn't make any sense. I never said anything like that, and your attempt to use similar phrasing as a means to be clever doesn't help.



No, and I never said that. I'm talking about a replacement, here.

I never once said this,

"If someone is okay with a GM because "Well, at least he did something, other than Holland",

but you put that in your rebuttal nonetheless, I did nothing different and used no different language than you did.

please go back to where YOU FEEL i STARTED the comparision between the two and clearly look to see if I did just that, I did not is the answer.

You did when you responded to Frk It suggesting Shero "ew when was the last time shero did anything as a GM."

I am not in favour of switching holland for shero, have never suggessted that be something we do. I have gone about reminding those who do try and discredit shero or any other name brought forth based on their track record that the only fair way to compare them to holland is from day one of their tenure vs that exact same day forward for holland, whatever that calander date happens to be, ie, 4 years ago, 5 years ago, 7 years ago, 10 years ago et al

 

[Mount Suribachi]

Answered No, but my patience is wearing awfully thin.

There are 3 main areas a GM can build a team - drafting, trading, and free agency.

Trading - his total unwillingness to make a trade the last 5 years has led to a stagnation of the roster, and areas of weakness remaining weak. Detroit has made the fewest trades of any team since the 06 lockout - now we don't have to suddenly turn into the Flyers and blow it up after every loss, but he has done little to nothing to improve the team via trade since the Stuart trade in 08. Jurco + 2nd for Legwand could haunt us for years. Plenty of quality players have been moved the last few years, and Holland hasn't been in on any of them.

Free Agency - Again, since the Rafalski signing, pretty much terrible. Alfie worked out, Modano didn't. Weiss has the makings of a $25M disaster. 2 year deals for Sammy and Bert threatened to pull the team under last season. Offering a broken down 37 year old Boyle a 3 year deal thankfully didn't come off. Cleary.

Drafting - quite frankly, it seems like this is saving Hollands job right now. The fearful and risk averse strategy he has followed the last 5-6 years has actually paid dividends with the draft as he has accumulated a deep pool of highly talented youngsters. His strategy of trading down from our 1st rounder has reaped huge rewards. He's picked up numerous gems in rounds 2-4, and those kids came in last year and saved our season. And yet he still seems reluctant to run with those kids, or to give chances to other promising youngsters. Furthermore he seems unwilling to flip some of our plethora of prospects, many of whom have no roster spots available now and in the future, for talented roster players.

Basically, he needs to either give the kids the heads and show what they can do, or be prepared to trade some of those kids to improve the team.

 

[r0bert8841]

As much as Holland's offseason moves (or lack thereof) frustrate me, the Wings continue to make the playoffs every year while battling absurd amounts of injuries, while simultaneously putting together one of the top prospect pools in the NHL despite not even having anything resembling a top draft pick. Ya it may not be sexy but he gets the job done. Some of you guys just need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have a prospect pool that will keep the Wings competitive for years to come.

Comparing Holland to Nill and Yzerman isn't fair. Yzerman and Nill both had the opportunity to cherry pick the teams that had the most favorable situations. Both Tampa and Dallas have already gone through there rebuilding years and have plenty of youth built from their high draft picks. Detroit is on a different part of the life cycle, we are in rebuild the phase, and Holland is doing a great job of that.