Ken Holland has been rebuilding through the draft for nearly 15 years

[njx9]

1) that’s not true, there is no guarantee on rebuilds. There are countless examples of rebuilds being dragged out years longer than planned.

You're not really wrong, but I always find it ironic that Holland is, simultaneously one of the best GMs in the business, and also so hopelessly inept that he's comparable to Chiarelli/the former Leafs regime.

 

[odin1981]

You posit that “the sooner you start the sooner you finish”

1) that’s not true, there is no guarantee on rebuilds. There are countless examples of rebuilds being dragged out years longer than planned.

2) Even if it’s true that “the sooner you rebuild the sooner you finish” that logic works both ways. It is equally true that there is always another year to rebuild. It doesn’t make sense to deliberately discard playoffs (think branding, Cash flow, potential playoff run, arena deal, etc) to prematurely start a rebuild before the team is actually plunging the basement.

In regards to #1 the reason why rebuilds often can fail is the team(s) often go after scoring first which lifts you out of good pick range (for this discussion lets say above top 10 picks). In doing so the team rises to mediocrity range without having things like defense fixed and naturally wingers/centers cost much more on there second and third contracts because they produce points and make themselves more expensive. So what normally happens is your cap hits raise too much but the problems (defense) which are slower to be cost rising don't get addressed and you get capped out without getting fixed ala Calgary Flames.

But because they move to the 11-20 pick range they have to hope that far too many teams pass up really good prospects which really isn't very likely any longer due to increased scouting by all the teams in the NHL compared to where the wings where in the late 80's and early 90's where they where one of the few teams to do their due diligence across the globe. Because of that at best you can only hope for at best a first round exit team/bubble team and your team has to go under another tank stretch to hope for a better cohesion of talent.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

You're not really wrong, but I always find it ironic that Holland is, simultaneously one of the best GMs in the business, and also so hopelessly inept that he's comparable to Chiarelli/the former Leafs regime.

But he isn't comparable to either of them.

When has Holland moved out a player in an abjectly terrible trade? Chiarelli had Tyler Seguin fall into his lap. He dealt him for Loui Eriksson and trash.
Chiarelli had Taylor Hall on his roster. He traded him for Adam Larsson.

The former Leafs had about three or four years since the Mats Sundin years that they were anything more than playoff fodder. The Red Wings for at least 18 of the 25 years of the streak were nearly locks for the Final and it was an earthshattering upset if they lost a series at all. They won 4 Cups, played in two more, played in about four or five more conference championships, etc.

Nonis dealt Phil Kessel for scraps and let the team get so bad that they literally had no other option than to blow it to kingdom come.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Interesting article:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/articles/a-visualization-of-nhl-draft-classes-2003-to-2016.283/.

That says it perfectly. Puts a bow on it, really.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Drafting Shea Weber and Roman Josi in later rounds? Pure skill. Drafting two hall of fame players in Datsyuk and Zetterberg? Pure luck. You can't make this **** up around here.

Yeah, it should be pretty easy to understand. Lots of second round draft picks turn into really good hockey players. It is exceptionally rare for a 6th or 7th round draft pick to turn into a hall of famer. I have to give Ken Holland credit, he admitted it was pure luck.

 

[obey86]

In regards to #1 the reason why rebuilds often can fail is the team(s) often go after scoring first which lifts you out of good pick range (for this discussion lets say above top 10 picks). In doing so the team rises to mediocrity range without having things like defense fixed and naturally wingers/centers cost much more on there second and third contracts because they produce points and make themselves more expensive. So what normally happens is your cap hits raise too much but the problems (defense) which are slower to be cost rising don't get addressed and you get capped out without getting fixed ala Calgary Flames.

But because they move to the 11-20 pick range they have to hope that far too many teams pass up really good prospects which really isn't very likely any longer due to increased scouting by all the teams in the NHL compared to where the wings where in the late 80's and early 90's where they where one of the few teams to do their due diligence across the globe. Because of that at best you can only hope for at best a first round exit team/bubble team and your team has to go under another tank stretch to hope for a better cohesion of talent.

Huh? The Flames have been widely considered to have one of the best defensive corps in the league over the past few seasons, it hasn't gotten them anywhere.

 

[Run the Jewels]

My problem with this whole debate is that it is disingenuous as hell.

Holland has not been “rebuilding through the draft for 15 years”. 15 years takes you back to the original cap lockout when the Wings were quite literally doing the opposite of rebuilding.

Yes, the draft has without question been his number one priority for maintaining a playoff team since the salary cap was implemented. He has only traded one first round draft pick since the lockout in an attempt to improve the roster at the time of the trade, and that was the Kyle Quincey trade. He has otherwise either held onto the first round pick or traded down for multiple lower picks with the same goal of "retooling" through the draft.

 

[odin1981]

Huh? The Flames have been widely considered to have one of the best defensive corps in the league over the past few seasons, it hasn't gotten them anywhere.

The flames of the Iginla era. But the flames now aren't gonna do much of anything either.

 

[njx9]

But he isn't comparable to either of them.

When has Holland moved out a player in an abjectly terrible trade? Chiarelli had Tyler Seguin fall into his lap. He dealt him for Loui Eriksson and trash.
Chiarelli had Taylor Hall on his roster. He traded him for Adam Larsson.

The former Leafs had about three or four years since the Mats Sundin years that they were anything more than playoff fodder. The Red Wings for at least 18 of the 25 years of the streak were nearly locks for the Final and it was an earthshattering upset if they lost a series at all. They won 4 Cups, played in two more, played in about four or five more conference championships, etc.

Nonis dealt Phil Kessel for scraps and let the team get so bad that they literally had no other option than to blow it to kingdom come.

None of that is the point. It's not the specific things he has or hasn't done. It's this idea, and I recognize that it seems to stem from "both sides" of the Holland argument, that while he might be one of the best GMs of all time, if we'd jumped into a rebuild sooner, he would've been basically comparable to Chiarelli in terms of results.

Either you believe in him, and a rebuild at any time (as a function, not a value) would've been fine and would've been/will be successful, or you don't, and it doesn't matter if the team started rebuilding in 2009 or yesterday, as long as he's the one running it. But calling him a great GM while simultaneously wringing your hands and claiming that some teams have had really long rebuilds (because of their terrible GMs) is really, really silly.

 

[Henkka]

That says it perfectly. Puts a bow on it, really.

Yep, shows the skills of Jim Nill.

Only mistake Kenny ever did was to trust him.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

None of that is the point. It's not the specific things he has or hasn't done. It's this idea, and I recognize that it seems to stem from "both sides" of the Holland argument, that while he might be one of the best GMs of all time, if we'd jumped into a rebuild sooner, he would've been basically comparable to Chiarelli in terms of results.

Either you believe in him, and a rebuild at any time (as a function, not a value) would've been fine and would've been/will be successful, or you don't, and it doesn't matter if the team started rebuilding in 2009 or yesterday, as long as he's the one running it. But calling him a great GM while simultaneously wringing your hands and claiming that some teams have had really long rebuilds (because of their terrible GMs) is really, really silly.

If none of it is the point, why bring up those guys? And no, if we jumped into a rebuild and got the same materials to work with in building a roster that Edmonton got... we wouldn't be punting around at 78 points.

You can't make filet mignot out of ground chuck. Or, you can, but it's clear as ****ing day that it's not filet mignon.

 

[TatarTangle]

You're not really wrong, but I always find it ironic that Holland is, simultaneously one of the best GMs in the business, and also so hopelessly inept that he's comparable to Chiarelli/the former Leafs regime.

That's because every Red Wing fan can run the team better! Not to mention Blashill. What a bum. I mean, why isn't he giving the players who give 50% 20 minutes a game? I swear.

 

[njx9]

If none of it is the point, why bring up those guys?

Because the argument was made that some rebuilds never get anywhere. Edmonton and, until recently, Toronto, seem to fit that bill, do they not?

And no, if we jumped into a rebuild and got the same materials to work with in building a roster that Edmonton got... we wouldn't be punting around at 78 points.

You can't make filet mignot out of ground chuck. Or, you can, but it's clear as ****ing day that it's not filet mignon.

If you think Holland is a great GM, then that mindset makes a lot of sense. It's when people point at Edmonton to say "rebuilds are a bad idea, and might never work at all!" and simultaneously want to pretend that "of course we'd be better with all those #1s!" that it gets pretty disingenuous/hypocritical.

Either Holland is the bee's knees, and it doesn't matter if we started rebuilding in 2009 or today, it still would've worked, or Ken Holland is absolute garbage, and it doesn't matter if we'd started rebuilding in 2009 or today, because either way he, like a number of other GMs, isn't capable of making it work, and we're in limbo till he goes to Seattle no matter what.

That's because every Red Wing fan can run the team better! Not to mention Blashill. What a bum. I mean, why isn't he giving the players who give 50% 20 minutes a game? I swear.

You could also ask why a coach is so un-motivational and bad at player development that he still has players who only give 50% and won't buy in.

But really, I just want some consistency from both sides. If you believe Holland is X, then believe it.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Because the argument was made that some rebuilds never get anywhere. Edmonton and, until recently, Toronto, seem to fit that bill, do they not?



If you think Holland is a great GM, then that mindset makes a lot of sense. It's when people point at Edmonton to say "rebuilds are a bad idea, and might never work at all!" and simultaneously want to pretend that "of course we'd be better with all those #1s!" that it gets pretty disingenuous/hypocritical.

Either Holland is the bee's knees, and it doesn't matter if we started rebuilding in 2009 or today, it still would've worked, or Ken Holland is absolute garbage, and it doesn't matter if we'd started rebuilding in 2009 or today, because either way he, like a number of other GMs, isn't capable of making it work, and we're in limbo till he goes to Seattle no matter what.



You could also ask why a coach is so un-motivational and bad at player development that he still has players who only give 50% and won't buy in.

But really, I just want some consistency from both sides. If you believe Holland is X, then believe it.

And I know I personally have. He's a great GM.

The people who say "oh, you shouldn't rebuild because it might fail" are stupid. The people who say that Detroit needed to tear in down in 2010 because if you're not first, you're last... are stupid.

The truth has always been somewhere in the middle. My own personal feelings on it is that "rebuilds are silly" because anyone selling you a 5 year plan to get better is trying to earn them 5 years of security. The Wings have failed because they have only gotten good players out of their picks not great ones. They failed because they weren't as proactive in finding roster replacements (can't replace their talent, but can find players who can play the role) for Lidstrom, Rafalski, and Stuart.

The failure isn't that they declined to trade their veteran roster players for draft picks. It's that they largely whiffed on the picks they had in the late 2000s.

McCollum, Smith, Kindl. That's three first round picks that they got NOTHING out of. Smith was a below average #5, Kindl was a terrible #6, below average #7, and McCollum was hardly an AHL goalie.

The second round picks they had...
Landon Ferraro - garbage
Joakim Andersson - garbage
Tomas Jurco - garbage (he may not have been if his development wasn't screwed up)
Nastasiuk - garbage
Xaiver Ouellet - replaceable garbage
Ryan Sproul - garbage

Third round picks
Mattias Backman - garbage, traded to Dallas and he went home
Mattias Janmark - garbage, traded to Dallas, got 30 points on their high powered top line.
traded a 3rd for Dylan Sadowy - garbage

That is a list of 12 guys who have contributed nothing to the success of the Detroit Red Wings that were taken in a reasonable slot in the draft to expect an okay hockey player. This didn't come down to having a few more bites at the apple. It came down to terrible scouting. The Wings had picks, they just swung and missed on them.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Scotty Bowman was a pretty good coach right?

If I remember right, he had a certain player who would give really lackluster efforts. Now, this guy was so damn good that he COULD give 50% and still dominate... but AA is like the new age Sergei Fedorov with far less talent.

Fedorov would take plays off and lackadasically do stuff and get benched/demoted to D by Bowman. That's exactly what Blashill is doing (less the D thing because that would be a nightmare to have AA on D) with Athanasiou.

 

[SCD]

You could also ask why a coach is so un-motivational and bad at player development that he still has players who only give 50% and won't buy in.

Do really think a coach is responsible for work ethic?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Do really think a coach is responsible for work ethic?

I agree on this, but also disagree. A big part of a coach/managers job is to get buy in from his people. They need to find a way to stoke a fire under AA. Maybe giving him 3M and assurances that he will be relied on can actually help. However, it's not just something that you hand over because a guy pouts.

 

[SCD]

This has been a knock on AA, and to some extent Mantha, since juniors.

Some people are self motivated, some are not. I truly believe this is what separates good players from great players.

I also believe that Wings, during the past several drafts, have placed greater weight on character. Maybe no coincidence after dealing with these two.

 

[Winger98]

I agree on this, but also disagree. A big part of a coach/managers job is to get buy in from his people. They need to find a way to stoke a fire under AA. Maybe giving him 3M and assurances that he will be relied on can actually help. However, it's not just something that you hand over because a guy pouts.

Something that raised a red flag for me with Blashill was the story that came out towards the end of last year that Mantha had to approach Blashill to figure out what was going on rather than any of the coaches looking at the situation and saying, "hey, maybe what we're doing isn't working." Maybe Bylsma will shift the staff and fill that void, I don't know, but I thought that really made it look like Blashill has blinders on with some of his methods.

Have to say it reflects just as poorly on AA that he doesn't seem to have ever taken that same initiative that Mantha took to clear things up, too.

 

[kliq]

That says it perfectly. Puts a bow on it, really.

What would this look like if you removed all 1st round picks? Are you able to see that?

 

[BinCookin]

That says it perfectly. Puts a bow on it, really.

Does not take into account drafting position... and ignoring drafting position to analyze team drafting is "flawed" at best.

 

[StargateSG1]

And I know I personally have. He's a great GM.

The people who say "oh, you shouldn't rebuild because it might fail" are stupid. The people who say that Detroit needed to tear in down in 2010 because if you're not first, you're last... are stupid.

Yeah, cause all great GMs have 8 terrible, long term, barely movable contracts on the books and spend 80 million dollars on the bottom 5 finishes.
Brilliant, I tell ya, Brilliant!

 

[Flowah]

Does not take into account drafting position... and ignoring drafting position to analyze team drafting is "flawed" at best.

You can't even see how many picks were used by each team.

It is a pointless graph.

What would this look like if you removed all 1st round picks? Are you able to see that?

I made a spreadsheet that would show you, round by round, how you looked compared to other teams, and let you plug in your metrics like games played and PPG to start filtering. Also showed you the round average, how many picks your team had that round, and on and on. The tl;dr is that drafting is hard as balls and no one is good at it and what separates "great" drafting from "good" drafting is like 1-2 good players over 10 years. Which makes sense. Truly elite players are difference makers and can play for 15-20 years. You draft one, then draft another within a 10 year time span and you've got a hell of a core with overlapping primes. Frankly, there just isn't enough elite talent out there to be found. Every draft might have 1-3 legitimately elite players. And one of those 3 are almost guaranteed to be taken in the first 3 picks.

I'm about to head out but I'll link it later. Or you could dig through my posts but that sounds tedious.

 

[kliq]

You can't even see how many picks were used by each team.

It is a pointless graph.

I made a spreadsheet that would show you, round by round, how you looked compared to other teams, and let you plug in your metrics like games played and PPG to start filtering. Also showed you the round average, how many picks your team had that round, and on and on. The tl;dr is that drafting is hard as balls and no one is good at it and what separates "great" drafting from "good" drafting is like 1-2 good players over 10 years. Which makes sense. Truly elite players are difference makers and can play for 15-20 years. You draft one, then draft another within a 10 year time span and you've got a hell of a core with overlapping primes. Frankly, there just isn't enough elite talent out there to be found. Every draft might have 1-3 legitimately elite players. And one of those 3 are almost guaranteed to be taken in the first 3 picks.

I'm about to head out but I'll link it later. Or you could dig through my posts but that sounds tedious.

That's what I figured.
There is no doubt that the Wings between not having high picks (or any) in the 1st round and making bad picks have that they have been dreadful drafting in the 1st round between the Kronwall and Mantha picks. I would never dispute that. That is why I would like to know how they rank if you take out the 1st round.

Its cool that you do that, my hat's off to you as I can't imagine how hard that would be. If you find it, please post as I'd be very interested in seeing it.

 

[kliq]

Yeah, cause all great GMs have 8 terrible, long term, barely movable contracts on the books and spend 80 million dollars on the bottom 5 finishes.
Brilliant, I tell ya, Brilliant!

Again, you're obsessed with Holland, you need to get over it.