GDT: Off-Season Thread IV - July 1st 'Oh ****' Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

haulinbass

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
1,425
1,088
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.

Exactly, great post
 

Tatar

Registered User
Mar 26, 2011
755
0
FL300
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.

Who? The Hawks in 2013? That's 3 years ago, and it's time to move on.

Irregardless, playing the what-if game is dangerous. We aren't positioned to win a championship. We don't have an elite scorer, we don't have an elite defenseman, nor do we have an elite goalie. Signing players like Nielsen or Ott will not make this team a contender and further prolongs this teams eventual downfall. it makes it worse when you realize that we have almost 50% of our cap tied up for the next half decade primarily for aging veterans and depth players

So when some people say it may take 10 years to rebuild that's not necessarily untrue seeing as how we have to wait for our **** contracts to expire or lose an asset trading them.

At this point all Kenny is doing is throwing gasoline on a fire. His contract runs through 2017-18, knowing the relationship between the Illitch's and Ken he won't go anywhere until his contract expires. I agree with whoever said he's really just looking to make the playoffs just to pad his resume for the HHoF as a GM who has never missed the playoffs. It doesn't feel like we're aiming for the Cup anymore.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
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.
 

Roomba With a Bauer

Registered User
Sep 11, 2007
4,170
2,616
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 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.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
Bla bla, nobody is saying we should be celebrating "almost", but generally if you "almost" accomplish something it's not really advisable to blow everything up and start over from scratch.
 

Fear

Registered User
Nov 17, 2014
1,479
366
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.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
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.
 

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,212
4,422
Boston, MA
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.

Detroit isn't trying to be the best of thirty, it's trying to be better than 14 others, the ones who don't make it.
 

Heraldic

Registered User
Dec 12, 2013
2,937
51
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.

I'm talking about a process of tearing not-contending, mediocre, aging team and building a contending team which is a lot, lot younger. That's exactly what is happening in Toronto and Buffalo.

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.

Yeah. You sell the old core for maximum return in terms of futures. In the process you ice a team that is not that good and end up getting a top-pick (pretty much the only way nowadays to get a franchise cornerstone player).

The point is not to ice a similar team - the point is to replace a mediocre team with a contending team.

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.

I have never really understood how people are actually buying that "rebuild on the fly" thing... What he does is he acts like a contender without having a contender team. What Holland has done, is relying more on his younger players. While that is something new for him, it's basically what every other successful team has done in the league for a long time.

Buffalo, before actually committing into a rebuild, tried to make a "re-tool". For example they traded Gaustad for futures (ended up being Girgensons). I haven't seen Holland doing anything like that - it's pretty much the opposite.

And you actually still think that Detroit is able to land a top tier UFA? I mean, after they have been rejected by Suter, Niskanen, Orpik, Strålman, Radulov and not even Ladd and Stamkos bothering to give a visit for them? They simply don't interest top tier free agents, because they cannot offer a contending team now or in the near future.

Even with Pegula money and okay roster Sabres weren't able to get even into discussions with Parise, Suter, Brad Richards etc... Sabres weren't good enough. Now, after sucking couple of seasons, adding elite potential and talent and having a relatively good season behind, the team had a chatter with Stamkos, and after 15 minutes conversation they landed one of the biggest free agenst out there (Okposo).

That's what having legit talent on your team means.

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.

Whether you like Detroit's young players more or not is totally irrelevant. Both of those young players collection is not a contending caliber. That's what matters.

And you got a bunch of second tier players and couple of players having potential to be more. That's not exactly anything mind exploding or something other organisations don't have as well.

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.

Goaltending is least of the problems nowadays. In the finals we saw two really inexperienced goalies. And Lehner and Ullmark both have potential to be more than enough to win.

And not sure what you mean about Gerbe? He simply wasn't qualified back then.

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.

Exactly. They got top-tier talent with their picks, have been relatively successful with their drafting in general, have made moves with the great amount of assets they have had to support the young core. That's how you operate under a proper rebuild. Now you insulate the the talent with top-tier UFA talent (Okposo).

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.

The last 10 years Wings have been no better drafting team than Buffalo.

You simply tear down the veteran core, get assets and stick to the plan.

The problem is that being able to do that, you have to make a lot of moves... You have to be aggressive and take risks. Does that sound something Holland has been doing under a salary cap era?

Detroit has been successful for the last 5 years mainly because of four things 1) Babcock 2) Datsyuk 3) Kronwall 4) Zetterberg (in no particular order). Those players have done the heavy lifting until this day. Despite everyone of those players declining, they have been the backbone of that team - used against top competition and so on. Yeah, they have been successful to draft supportive pieces (which is important as well), but that gets you only so far.

Not much on the top end obviously, but man do they have a bunch of solid players rattling around the system.

Like pretty much every other organisation in the league. Still you're heading where you're heading.

The conversation you're having here is totally understandable - and even required. The league seems to be more and more (for various of reasons) the type of leaguea, where you have three different types of teams: 1) contenders 2) rebuilders 3) teams who are doomed to mediocrity because of their financial situation.

Not every team has the financial means to go over a rebuild. Wings should have fans loyal enough and financial security to take the blow of couple of awful seasons. Does it involve risks? Of course. You, indeed, might blow the rebuild like Edmonton did. But what you achieve without any risks involved? Usually nothing. Of course, if you think that you're not competent enough to make that kind of process, it is another matter.
 

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
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.

It also took Babcock having one of the worst coaching moments of his life in game 6 where for no ******* reason he went away from the Zetterberg vs Toews matchup and on home ice nonetheless. Was honestly the moment I stopped treating Babcock like a top 5 coach. Heaton would say the players needed to execute better, sure but we inexplicably went away from that matchup and gave up 3 third period goals in game 6 to lose the series. 20 minutes to hold up a lead. Lucky to get to OT in game seven sure, but the time to put away Chicago was when we entered Game 6 at home with a one goal lead.

There is a lot to being a top contender, that is how you consistently hope to win. The Ricky Bobby way of thinking isn't really an acceptable way to run a business or franchise.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
2013 is a world away, guys.

We had 2 ppg centers, and Kronwall was still a somewhat competent top pairing/#1 guy.

Datsyuk is gone, and Z and Kronwall have regressed a ton. Our dynamic is completely different now.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
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 difference here is that red wings have signed those contracts already. sabres went on to rebuild before they did. they didn't really have any bad long-term contracts on the books (that couldn't be CBO'd). not so much with the wings.

they can't (or shouldn't) rebuild yet as there are so many bad to disgusting contracts on the roster for another 3-5 years. and they are still a perennial PO-team. that could change as soon as next season. i'd guess it will but they still have a pretty good shot to make it.

ideal time to tear it apart would be closer to end of this decade if/as they have fallen out of PO-contention and those long-term vet deals are starting to expire and maybe even be tradeable with salary retention. or couple of years ago but can't change that anymore and teams don't really start to rebuild when they still can make the playoffs every year, even if they can't do any damage there. the CBA could also see some changes which could be helpful during the rebuild to know what those things are.
 

WingedWheel1987

Registered User
Jan 11, 2011
13,324
902
GPP Michigan
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.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
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.
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.
 

SpookyTsuki

Registered User
Dec 3, 2014
15,916
671
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.

That ref got the call right
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
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.

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.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
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. 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).

I expect AA especially to get plenty of opportunity. I've been around before, people always freak out because we have 14 forwards on the roster in July and they think no one will ever get injured, no one will get traded, no one will get waived and anyone who isn't on the roster for Game 1 has zero chance of touching the NHL. AA will, at worst, be the first call-up. And the worse guys like Vanek/Ott/Miller/Jurco/Pulkkinen perform, the more chances AA/Mantha/Bertuzzi will get. So the only way they don't get much opportunity is if the team does fine, in which case who really cares?

As for the defense, it's not unheard of for d-men to hit their prime in their late 20s. But moreso I'm hoping Marchenko can take a step forward, and Ouellet's time will likely come this season to show if he's worth sticking with or not. I have Russo and Sproul as outsiders that could impress enough in camp and in the AHL to earn some opportunities. I've given up on Smith and continue to hope that he's traded this summer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->