Line Combos: Odd men out for Thursday?

[Crymson]

Man what happened to the old Kenny Holland?

Do you mean the one with unlimited money and an excellent team that everyone wanted to play for? Well, the cap limited the money, and a combination of the cap and old age chipped away at the team. Now he's got a middling squad, and he continues to resolutely oppose any change in methodology.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

@DarrenDreger
Red Wings still searching for a quality, right shot D. May have to wait awhile for right player to become available.

Good thing Jensen is getting a chance.

 

[Vladdy84]

@DarrenDreger
Red Wings still searching for a quality, right shot D. May have to wait awhile for right player to become available.

Earth shattering news Dreger They have a few in GR FWIW.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Do you mean the one with unlimited money and an excellent team that everyone wanted to play for? Well, the cap limited the money, and a combination of the cap and old age chipped away at the team. Now he's got a middling squad, and he continues to resolutely oppose any change in methodology.

Despite his issues of late he did a great job dealing with the cap in 2006 and turning the team back into a contender. You can't deny him that.

 

[Frk It]

Good thing Jensen is getting a chance.

Earth shattering news Dreger They have a few in GR FWIW.

I imagine they're not just targeting any right handed D. Jensen is a bottom pairing guy right now, same for Marchenko, and Sprouls offense is there but not the rest of his game.

I imagine they're targeting a top 4 D that can play on the PP.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I imagine they're not just targeting any right handed D. Jensen is a bottom pairing guy right now, same for Marchenko, and Sprouls offense is there but not the rest of his game.

I imagine they're targeting a top 4 D that can play on the PP.

Exactly. Jensen or Marchenko might do a decent job as #6, giving us at least one RH shot, but they're not Mike Green or Dan Boyle or Tyler Myers.

 

[Invictus12]

Can you please stop imagining things? I don't hate you and nothing in the post you quoted would indicate that I do. [mod]

As for Nyquist's development, who was talking about his development? We were talking about what was best for the team. What was best for the team is for him to have played from the start.

We could very well have been beat in the first round because of Holland's stupidity. Consider that we needed only a SINGLE extra point to move ahead of Columbus in the standings last season. Then instead of the Bruins we play the Pens. I like our odds *way* better versus the Pens. Don't you? Do you think if Nyquist had played from the start, perhap our leading goal scorer from last season might have been the difference in at least one of those 20+ games? Many of which were one goal games, some of which we lost in OT or the SO, which may not even have gone that far if we had a guy like Nyquist playing instead of Cleary who scored what, 8 points in 52 games and had crap possession numbers? Nyquist could have easily won us a measly extra point through that stretch.

Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20.

Consider this though, say Nyquist made the team straigfht away. Datsyuk and Zetterberg go down with injuries, Nyquist, feeling he already made the cut to the team, never hits the hot-streak that he did last year and we miss the playoffs entirely.

Speculation is fun but it's still only speculation and my scanario is just as likely as yours. While I would have chosen Nyquist of Cleary myself to start the season last year, I also understand that I don't have the actual experience or information that Bab and Holland have. Maybe they just felt one more season would do Nyquist good. Perhaps for reasons such as playing larger role than they thought they would have on the team... Most of you here seem to absolutely 'know' what they're thinking...

 

[Vladdy84]

I imagine they're not just targeting any right handed D. Jensen is a bottom pairing guy right now, same for Marchenko, and Sprouls offense is there but not the rest of his game.

I imagine they're targeting a top 4 D that can play on the PP.

Yeah I know. Those are pretty hard to acquire and if one was to hit the market the price would be TOO DAMN HIGH for Kenny.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Man what happened to the old Kenny Holland?

Devallano, Murray and Bowman's players retired, Hakan hasn't hit a grand slam in a long time and he no longer has the biggest checkbook on the block.

 

[PullHard]

To be fair, the league basically did everything possible to limit the way the Wings operated.

Still doesn't excuse most of what has happened over the last ~5 years, but yeah. Definitely more challenging for Holland now.

 

[Flowah]

Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20.

Consider this though, say Nyquist made the team straigfht away. Datsyuk and Zetterberg go down with injuries, Nyquist, feeling he already made the cut to the team, never hits the hot-streak that he did last year and we miss the playoffs entirely.

Speculation is fun but it's still only speculation and my scanario is just as likely as yours. While I would have chosen Nyquist of Cleary myself to start the season last year, I also understand that I don't have the actual experience or information that Bab and Holland have. Maybe they just felt one more season would do Nyquist good. Perhaps for reasons such as playing larger role than they thought they would have on the team... Most of you here seem to absolutely 'know' what they're thinking...

I don't think your scenario is just as likely as mine. Nyquist is a hard working competitive guy. Your assertion that he would have just coasted because he's made the team is pretty umm.. unfounded? He was going to have to pass through waivers after 2 games, by all accounts he was on the team after that. Yet his hot streak continued.

It is far more reasonable to assume that Nyquist could have earned us another point rather than to assume Nyquist would have displayed that level of laziness and lack of competitive spirit.

And this is hardly hindsight. People were saying it last summer when Cleary was signed that it was a mistake. People were saying it while Cleary was struggle-busing in the NHL and Nyquist was going a PPG in the AHL. I'm pretty sure even Babcock said in an interview this year that he wanted Nyquist from the start last season.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Devallano, Murray and Bowman's players retired, Hakan hasn't hit a grand slam in a long time and he no longer has the biggest checkbook on the block.

So you guys are honestly going to ignore Holland's moves post-lockout up to 2009?

It doesn't have to be either he was always good or he was never good. There is a middle ground.

 

[Crymson]

Despite his issues of late he did a great job dealing with the cap in 2006 and turning the team back into a contender. You can't deny him that.

Yep, but he had superlative talent already with the team, much of it on the younger side.

 

[Invictus12]

I don't think your scenario is just as likely as mine. Nyquist is a hard working competitive guy. Your assertion that he would have just coasted because he's made the team is pretty umm.. unfounded? He was going to have to pass through waivers after 2 games, by all accounts he was on the team after that. Yet his hot streak continued.

It is far more reasonable to assume that Nyquist could have earned us another point rather than to assume Nyquist would have displayed that level of laziness and lack of competitive spirit.

And this is hardly hindsight. People were saying it last summer when Cleary was signed that it was a mistake. People were saying it while Cleary was struggle-busing in the NHL and Nyquist was going a PPG in the AHL. I'm pretty sure even Babcock said in an interview this year that he wanted Nyquist from the start last season.

Do you expect Nyquist to hit 40 goals this season? I don't. (Though I'll be very happy to be wrong on this.) My assertion has nothing to do with laziness. However, I do think that I have some understanding of what could drive a person. You can call it pettiness, competitive spirit, whatever. I think it's just as likely that part in what played to his enormous contribution to the team last year was a chip on his shoulder for being sent down in favor of Cleary or whomever he felt he was better than on the team. In other words, rub it in! Prove them wrong etc...

Except perhaps him being sent down had nothing to do with his abilities in the first place? I think it's plausible to think that Holland or whomever felt that, given the roster, Nyquist wouldn't be put in a proper playing role. Cleary's role or whomever. Perhaps it was just a reasoning that Nyquist wasn't going to beat out Alfredesson, Franzen, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weiss and whomever else on the roster to produce point, which is what he's really good at and putting him with tasks that are given to Cleary, Bertuzzi, Abdelkader etc, would actually be counter-productive both for Nyquist and for the team. Perhaps if we didn't have the injuries that we did last year, that would have been the correct assertion as well. I don't think Holland or Babcock expect Abdelkader to be putting up point like Nyquist or someone else and his role is different of that of other players. This is actually what really gets to me in these debates. People think that hockey is only with a every player being told 'go and score goals.' That's just not the way it works. Players are assigned roles. Sometimes for physical aspects, defensive aspects etc...

 

[Crymson]

Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20.

Consider this though, say Nyquist made the team straigfht away. Datsyuk and Zetterberg go down with injuries, Nyquist, feeling he already made the cut to the team, never hits the hot-streak that he did last year and we miss the playoffs entirely.

Speculation is fun but it's still only speculation and my scanario is just as likely as yours.

I think his scenario is vastly more likely than yours, given that Nyquist is not the type to simply take his foot off the gas when he knows his roster spot is guaranteed.

I also understand that I don't have the actual experience or information that Bab and Holland have. Maybe they just felt one more season would do Nyquist good. Perhaps for reasons such as playing larger role than they thought they would have on the team... Most of you here seem to absolutely 'know' what they're thinking...

Holland's rationale was open and simple: of all the players who were on the roster, Nyquist was the single one immune to waivers. That was the entire, idiotic reasoning behind it. He would have been on the starting roster otherwise.

So yep, we absolutely "know" what he was thinking.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yep, but he had superlative talent already with the team, much of it on the younger side.

That is something you see with most (if not all) successful GMs, so I'm not sure how that is an indictment on Holland.

He had to trim salary in 2006, won the President's Trophy the next season, and was able to make moves to turn that 2006 first round upset team into the team that went to the finals two years in a row and won a cup. Yes, Holland was a big reason why that happened.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

So you guys are honestly going to ignore Holland's moves post-lockout up to 2009?

It doesn't have to be either he was always good or he was never good. There is a middle ground.

I agree their is middle ground but what moves perse did he make between 2006-2009 that were absolutely fantastic and directly lead to the 2008 cup?

to me, lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg are why we won that cup and those moves were 10-almost 20 years before 2008

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

@DarrenDreger
Red Wings still searching for a quality, right shot D. May have to wait awhile for right player to become available.

In other words, We have to wait until March and the trade deadline.

 

[Frk It]

I agree their is middle ground but what moves perse did he make between 2006-2009 that were absolutely fantastic and directly lead to the 2008 cup?

to me, lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg are why we won that cup and those moves were 10-almost 20 years before 2008

Don't think we win a Cup in 08 if we had not signed Rafalski in 07.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Don't think we win a Cup in 08 if we had not signed Rafalski in 07.

while i 100% agree rafalski was good he wasnt why we won the cup and certainly isnt a NHL defining move of the post lockout era.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I agree their is middle ground but what moves perse did he make between 2006-2009 that were absolutely fantastic and directly lead to the 2008 cup?

to me, without lidstrom, datsyuk and zetterberg are why we won that cup

So there had to be a bunch of fantastic moves in order for him to be a big contributor to the cup win? Making changes each year to keep the team as a contender leading up to that cup year don't count? He was a lot more aggressive then than he is now, trusted the kids more, and made trades and signings that were a factor in winning the cup. Do they win without trading for Stuart? Signing Rafalski? Hasek? Signing Osgood to a cheap contract after the lockout? Moving Legace after the debacle in 2006? Parting ways with guys like Bertuzzi and Schneider?

I didn't realize I had to go point-by-point to prove to you guys that Holland was a good, if not great, GM at a point in his career.

while i 100% agree rafalski was good he wasnt why we won the cup and certainly isnt a NHL defining move of the post lockout era.

You think we win that cup without Rafalski?

What is an NHL defining move if your standards are that high?

 

[Invictus12]

I think his scenario is vastly more likely than yours, given that Nyquist is not the type to simply take his foot off the gas when he knows his roster spot is guaranteed.



Holland's rationale was open and simple: of all the players who were on the roster, Nyquist was the single one immune to waivers. That was the entire, idiotic reasoning behind it. He would have been on the starting roster otherwise.

So yep, we absolutely "know" what he was thinking.

Actually, life hardly works that way. We had a better team in 09 than we did in 08. What happened? Sorry, if we're talking about going back in time and re-doing something, every other scenario that played out the way it did automatically goes right out the window and the amount of possibilities is countless. We could have won the cup, Nyquist could have got injured in his first NHL game and never recovered etc... The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to speculate on what 'could have been.' Saying one is more 'likely' than the other is just as redundant.

As far as Holland's rationale, that's speculation at best. Resonable one, still speculation though. Let's entertain it though, not knowing the future, if that was indeed his thought process and nothing else was affecting that decision, what makes it so wrong in your book?

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

So there had to be a bunch of fantastic moves in order for him to be a big contributor to the cup win? Making changes each year to keep the team as a contender leading up to that cup year don't count? He was a lot more aggressive then than he is now, trusted the kids more, and made trades and signings that were a factor in winning the cup. Do they win without trading for Stuart? Signing Rafalski? Hasek? Signing Osgood to a cheap contract after the lockout? Moving Legace after the debacle in 2006? Parting ways with guys like Bertuzzi and Schneider?

I didn't realize I had to go point-by-point to prove to you guys that Holland was a good, if not great, GM at a point in his career.



You think we win that cup without Rafalski?

1. i think we dont win the cup without datsyuk, zetterberg and lidstrom, i dont think rafalski was the engine that drove that bus no

2. listen i just think it does need to be said(proven) exactly what steps holland made coming out of the lockout that changed the direction of the team and lead to long term success if thats being argued. To me, dropping bottom depth players or getting older goalies to sign cap friendly deals arent that great. To me, great moves that define a GM as great are fantastic trades where they clearly got the best long term player, smart trades at the draft to move up and snag guys who go on to become superstars, signing key/important UFA's who go on to become long term leaders for your franchise, etc

 

[ArGarBarGar]

And I gave you steps Holland made which changed the direction of the team and lead to "long term" success.

Most GMs get their long term success from acquiring elite players in the draft. I can't think of any GMs who were able to manufacture long term success through their own actions without help from the draft or signing free agents. Chicago? High picks in the draft and landing Hossa. LA? High picks in the draft. Pittsburgh? Same as the previous two.


And honestly, you rarely see fantastic trades that clearly change the definition of the team and equate to long term success. I'm sure you will use Nill as an example, but he has one season under his belt and some of his acquisitions haven't even played in a Stars uniform yet. Yzerman? They have had as much success as Detroit's Red Wings.

I also find it odd that you say "snag guys who go on to become superstars" when Datsyuk and Zetterberg were both part of the Holland era, but are apparently inherited by him because of Andersson. Also in terms of long term leaders, how many years are we talking here? Rafalski was a leader and the Lidstrom-Rafalski pairing was dominant.

I think these are very specific requirements meant to meander around what Holland DID do and give reasons why he was never a good or great GM. I think that's ridiculous. I also think it is ridiculous to assume only three players are the reason behind winning a cup. Does that mean Lombardi's acquisition of Carter and Richards don't really matter because he inherited Kopitar, Quick, and Doughty?

 

[Frk It]

while i 100% agree rafalski was good he wasnt why we won the cup and certainly isnt a NHL defining move of the post lockout era.

Rafalski was a top 10 dman in scoring his first year here, and was top 5 the next year. Adding Rafalski was absolutely a defining move in the team winning a Cup.