So lemme get this straight, you think the Wings will always make the playoffs and even when they are on the downswing of their rebuild, they will have 40-50% chance of going on a deep run and when they are fully built up they will be at around 60% chance of going on a deep run? All because of this magical parity where teams in the bottom third in almost every category consistently go on deep runs?
Like I've said, you don't understand my position in specific and you've lost the general context of the discussion in general.
To recap for you, we're talking about whether missing the playoffs would change philosophy (it won't), and whether missing the playoffs to gain it's incumbent improvement in draft position is worth losing out on any chance at winning a round or two (it's not).
Do I think the Wings will ALWAYS make the playoffs? No, of course not. That's silly.
Do I think the the Wings (or any NHL team) have a decent chance at winning a round or two, even when they come in with a 5-8 seed? Yes.
I haven't exactly been hiding my candle under a basket here, man.
I'm the spoiled ignorant fan who only accepts winning, but is perfectly fine with the Wings missing the playoffs, but you are the mature and rational ran that expects the Wings to perpetually contend for the cup.
You will only allow a very short timeframe of losing before your demands for winning will re-assert themselves, though. And when they did they'd be ferocious. 'I allowed you idiots to stink for 2 years, and after that you're telling me the team is only going to get back to the general level they were at before they missed out on two playoffs!?! Yearrrrgh!'
You don't like being spoon fed cups, you just like being spoon fed a team that will never be bad.
Like I said, you don't understand my position. I liked the team in the 80's when winning a regular season game against Greztky was a huge accomplishment. I liked the team in the 90's when expectations and culture changed. I liked the team into the 2000's when the NHL was Three Titans and a bunch of Little Ladies. I like the team in the 2010's, with a league that requires constant correction.
If the Wings went on a 5 year run tomorrow and kicked everyone's butts, I'd like it. If they went on a 5 year nose-dive and struggled to make the postseasons, I'd like it. If they continue on as they are for 5 more years and hang around the top 10 in the NHL, I'd like it. I know those are all true because I've lived through all of them already and enjoyed following the sport in each.
But keep on believing you are some kind of special fan that truly gets "it" and us common folks just can't see the glory of Ken Holland.
Enh. You're just being hyperbolic. I think Holland's a good GM, and like anybody in any career makes mistakes and has successes. Having lived through years (and years and years and years) when the team was really bad at drafting and player development and only succeeded because they got on the European train early and were able to outspend everyone else, I enjoy seeing the team still be moderately successful with essentially the exactly opposite approach.
Holland should have just went down to the local Wal Mart and put a half dozen or so Hall of Famers in his cart at a bargain basement price to replace the old worn out ones? The system isn't set up for elite teams to stay that way. The bad teams get the higher draft picks. The way the CBA is set up limits the number of quality players in their prime to go the UFA route. This puts a high premium on mediocre players. Add to that the confines of a salary cap, and staying a Cup contender for two decades is a challenge to say the least. 
