ElysiumAB
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,902
- 5,549
He easily could have. But why would a GM say that? You shouldn't even say that if it's McDavid. Kid has to come into camp and play like he belongs.
What...
He easily could have. But why would a GM say that? You shouldn't even say that if it's McDavid. Kid has to come into camp and play like he belongs.
Wings are or are fast going exactly where Sabres were couple of years back then. We also had similar kind of discussion about rebuild/going with the current core back then. There was a lot of opposition for the rebuild back then, but I doubt that atm anyone thinks that it was the wrong course of action...
Devils are also a prime example - before Lou got canned. And to be honest, I expect the same to happen for Holland after a couple of years (officially he will retire with some kind of title). This team in the future likely will be a bubble team which in the season's end will clearly stay out of the playoffs (like Devils).
Holland added second tier piece and once again a pretty washed veteran. Top FAs seem to avoid Wings pretty effectively (Stamkos didn't even bothered to meet them, but he did bothered to meet Toronto and Buffalo - two latest tank teams in the league. It should tell enough). And it's not that Wings have been some power house drafting wise the last roughly +10 seasons (not actually bad either). Those additions will keep you from falling to the bottom, but those are nearly not enough to make you actually competitive. And 6 years contracts to 32 years old don't usually end up looking good. Though, I think Nielsen (atm) is a better player than many seems to know here.
Sabres tanked for two seasons. So we saw two seasons pretty bad hockey... But the organisation sold the plan to the fans well. Fans knew exactly what is happening, so stomaching putrid hockey was a lot more tolerable. Our GM also told us that he is going to improve the team during the last tank season - and he did (Kane, ROR, Lehner, Franson etc.). We pulled ourselves out of the bottom of the league (I don't think Sabres have been or are going to be another Edmonton. They have done the things Edmonton didn't (traded their picks and prospects for immediate, yet young pieces to get the team out of the bottom before they get used to it). This off-season he has told playoffs being the goal. He made two strong pick ups (Kulikov and Okposo) to strengthen the team, and might have more in his sleeves. I think that during the upcoming season Detroit and Buffalo are a lot closer in the standings than many think they will. But it remains to be seen.
This post wasn't posted to mock or insult. It was to offer meaningless 2 cents, because I think I know the situation Wings and Wings' fans as a community are right now. And that situation might be one of the most frustrated ones in the current NHL.
I just hope that not that many here are buying Holland's "it takes 10 years to rebuild" - because it really doesn't. Tim Murray said that anyone telling that it takes +5 years to make a rebuild is just buying himself some undeserved time (it was pretty much after he was appointed as the GM). It was a pretty bold statement, IMO, but also indicated that many GMs are just trying to cover their bases. This upcoming season is a season number 3 for Sabres on their rebuild, and I doubt they are 7 years away from icing a contender - if they ever will.
Why does Holland take all the blame while the players don't seem to take any?
What happens in an alternate reality where Z and Kronwall decline a little more slowly and our prospects improve a little more quickly? What if Jurco and Pulkkinen were as good right now as we expected them to be come when they were still shiny new toys? What if one of Marchenko/Ouellet/Sproul/someoneelse just found his groove and started killin it? A lot of this stuff could have realistically happened.
And at the same time, in the real world, we were actually 1 goal away from winning a series against the eventual Cup winners. It's not a huge stretch to suggest that one or two positive steps for certain players could have put us over the edge.
Yea we would all love an unstoppable roster full of superstars but in a league with this much parity you have to hope for those kind of developments that may or may not happen. And just because they didn't doesn't mean it's anybody's fault. Tough luck, let's hope the new wave of shiny toys does a better job.
Jesus. 3 years is not a long time. And even if it is too long for you, then I'll change my statement to "1 goal away from winning a series against Cup finalists". Big deal.
Jesus. 3 years is not a long time. And even if it is too long for you, then I'll change my statement to "1 goal away from winning a series against Cup finalists". Big deal.
The Leafs were also one goal away from winning a series against Cup finalists that year.
Then good for them, I'd say their team must have had some things going well for them then.
It's pro sports, every team is good, every team tries to be the best of 30, and every team gets good luck once in a while and bad luck once in a while, and if anything was predictable there wouldn't be millions of dollars being thrown around in Vegas every year.
People understand the difference in context though, right? If you want to burn it down the rebuild happens almost immediately... it's just that it's not complete any time soon.
That's the difference.
When people around here agitate for a rebuild what they're actually asking for is a total fire sale of pretty much any decent player on the roster with trade value, 2-4 years of absolute suckage, and then maybe if everything works out the team is back where they are now 5 years later, except with a younger core. Maybe. If the early 1's don't pan out you have to add years onto that time frame.
What the Wings appear to prefer is that oft-maligned 'rebuild on the fly' phrase, where they try and stay fairly competitive and then tinker with the team here and there. If they catch a break and land a big player via UFA or the draft, the team gets dangerous quick... if not, then they just sort of hover around the top of the league's middle third.
As far as comparison's to Buffalo's recent history goes, I could not disagree more. I like the futures of the 'young' (sub 26ish) players on Detroit's roster considerably more than those that were on the Buffalo roster. It's incredibly easy to do that, because we know how all those young players in Buffalo turned out. Vanek, Myers, Stafford and Gerbe all either flatlined or declined. They never found a replacement for Miller.
Now, sure, after really really stinking for a couple years following just kind of stinking for 2 they got consecutive top 3 picks and seem to have done well with them.
The problem with trying to replicate that kind of awfulness in Detroit is that the team drafts way too consistently and is way too successful finding competent NHL-quality players to get bad enough where they're like the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the NHL. They lost something like 500 man games from all their starters in 2014, and most of those from key players, and still made the playoffs. That's how deep Detroit is talentwise.
Not much on the top end obviously, but man do they have a bunch of solid players rattling around the system.
The only reason the Wings took Chicago to Game 7 was because they thought they would stomp us. As soon as they woke up they waxed the Wings in 3 straight games and it took a horrendous reffing error to get to OT in game 7.
"Almost' doesn't count for anything. "Almost" is a loser's refrain. Touting your team as "Almost beating the guys who eventually lost to the real winners" is pretty damn sad. Wings fans settling for mediocrity.
What is second place? The last to lose.
Jesus. 3 years is not a long time. And even if it is too long for you, then I'll change my statement to "1 goal away from winning a series against Cup finalists". Big deal.
And yes, they (Buffalo) cut the wires from their veterans before they totally fell off the cliff, and they got a proper value instead back. Detroit, instead, just has been re-signing players like Abdelkader, Helm, Ericsson etc. for long term contracts. Just imagine if Sabres would have extended Stafford, Vanek, Pominville, Miller, Ott - never bought-ought Ehrhoff etc. That team would be totally disgraceful - and handcuffed itself under putrid contracts for the next half a decade at least.
The Sabres are going through the second rebuild since the '06 lockout.
Hey guys we were a goal away from winning a first round series!!! Wooooooo!
You can't say that until we've fully transitioned to a new core of players. This coming season will be the first true hint of what the future core of the team is made of. If we put Larkin at #1C and he chokes, if AA and Mantha show nothing, if none of our young D takes steps forward, if Mrazek once again burns out halfway through the season... if Z, Nielsen, Vanek, Kronwall etc. are our best players.. then I'll start leaning towards pulling the trigger on a bigger shakeup and rebuild.Attempting to rebuild via the lottery can fail.
The Wings current strategy will/has already failed. It is not leading the Wings towards greatness. It's only good enough to build a 1st round exit team. It's not going to build the Wings a cup contending roster.
The only reason the Wings took Chicago to Game 7 was because they thought they would stomp us. As soon as they woke up they waxed the Wings in 3 straight games and it took a horrendous reffing error to get to OT in game 7.
"Almost' doesn't count for anything. "Almost" is a loser's refrain. Touting your team as "Almost beating the guys who eventually lost to the real winners" is pretty damn sad. Wings fans settling for mediocrity.
What is second place? The last to lose.
You can't say that until we've fully transitioned to a new core of players. This coming season will be the first true hint of what the future core of the team is made of. If we put Larkin at #1C and he chokes, if AA and Mantha show nothing, if none of our young D takes steps forward, if Mrazek once again burns out halfway through the season... if Z, Nielsen, Vanek, Kronwall etc. are our best players.. then I'll start leaning towards pulling the trigger on a bigger shakeup and rebuild.
I can't think of any really succesful examples of tanking and rebuilding around an existing core. Philly maybe? Most teams (Buffalo/Toronto/Edmonton/etc) tank because their core stinks and they want to change that. Our old core was great, no need to trade them. Our new core looks good too, but it's early and we need 1-2 more guys to step up. Until the new core looks bad you can't say Holland's strategy has truly failed.
Being just outside of the playoffs is the worst place to be. Picking in the 10-14 range, not getting any playoff hockey but not getting significantly better talent. Veteran stopgaps brings us to the playoffs and that's a major organizational goal. Those veterans also help shield prospects from getting thrown into the fire too early. While the major complaining happens when good prospects are seen as 'held back', it's much worse from a development standpoint to rush a prospect before they're ready. This is almost never seen as a danger around here, yet many, many teams are attempting to copy this development philosophy from the Wings and the teams that rush their prospects very rarely benefit from it. Nyquist spent about 20 games too much in Grand Rapids and we will never hear the end of it, but Jurco being in the NHL arguably 1-2 years too early has been completely forgotten (and blame shifted towards Babcock's coaching or Holland's signings).First off, the team doesn't have to tank. They don't need to trade Kronwall, Zetterberg, and any other veteran assets like many tank teams do. They just have to stop signing veteran stopgaps to long contracts. But that's too late, with Nielsen, Helm, and Abdelkader all locked up for the next half decade.
What people wanted was to stop signing those types of deals and let the highly regarded prospects take the jobs. The idea is that if they are a worse team, at least you are building for the future and giving them experience. If any of them thrive, but you're not winning, at least you have blue chip trade assets. And some people actually think if you play AA and Mantha, you'll end up with a better team, not at tank team at all. I personally think the roster would do about the same either way.
Second, I don't know how you expect this year to be the year AA and Mantha show anything. There's less roster space for them this year than last year. Helm and Abby are back on bigger contracts and thus big roles. Nielsen is going to play the whole year, unlike Datsyuk. Vanek is a winger, like our prospects, and much more a roadblock to offensive minutes than Richards was who played center and the point of the PP. Barring a trade, there's no room for young growth outside of Larkin in an offensive role.
And which young D is going to step forward? Smith is 27. DeKeyser 26. We know what these guys bring to the table. There's no magic 2nd gear hiding dormant. Marchenko is the only one I'd anticipate could show us a new level of play, but there's limited offensive upside there. The only defensive surprise for me would be if Smith could find some powerplay time and succeed there. That would be the biggest progress I think we could see. We need blueliners that can generate offense, so I'm crossing my fingers.
Now it's not all doom and gloom. The team isn't actually that bad. They just aren't that great either. It's a roster that will win half it's games and at times look good enough to beat a stronger team. I have no doubt about that.
Being just outside of the playoffs is the worst place to be. Picking in the 10-14 range, not getting any playoff hockey but not getting significantly better talent. .
Between 3rd in the division and just outside the playoffs would be my current guess. Wildcards most likely.Just out of curiosity, where do you think this team will be this year?