GDT: St. Louis Blues @ Detroit Red Wings

[jkutswings]

Blashill is going to have this team near the bottom of the NHL by the end of the year.

Or sooner. A loss against Florida tonight makes them a bottom-5 team. And currently, Detroit is tied for the 4th worst ROW (9 wins), and has the 4th worst record in their last 10 games (2-5-3). It's ALREADY ugly, both via the eye test and in league-wide metrics.

So I agree, it's a combo meal between Holland and Blash (and the rest of the front office, IMO).

 

[Redder Winger]

Or sooner. A loss against Florida tonight makes them a bottom-5 team. And currently, Detroit is tied for the 4th worst ROW (9 wins), and has the 4th worst record in their last 10 games (2-5-3). It's ALREADY ugly, both via the eye test and in league-wide metrics.

So I agree, it's a combo meal between Holland and Blash (and the rest of the front office, IMO).

Ottawa and Florida look very inept.

 

[jkutswings]

Ottawa and Florida look very inept.

Inept is a fitting word for all three teams.

 

[lomekian]

I just don't see how good decisions made a decade ago have anything to do with today

was he a good GM at some point in the past? sure,but he's been at this a very long time and at this point it should be incredibly clear to anyone paying attention in recent years that things have long since passed him by and he's no longer cut out for the role

acknowledge mistakes? it's been practically nothing BUT mistakes for like a half decade at this point

he doesn't make a lot of flashy awful moves like a Mike Milbury type(he's too conservative for that) so it's a bit tougher to spot,but you don't arrive at a roster that's both as devoid of talent as this one is that's also simultaneously bogged down with literally like a half dozen terrible contracts(some of them with quite a few years still left on them) to a group of guys that even at their very best were never anything more than mediocre role players without a whole lot of bad GMing along the way

we've been on this path for a quite a while now and Holland has been there pushing it along every step of the way

Because a track record of good decision making suggests basic competence, which in Holland's case needs suggesting because as public speaking goes, he no great shakes. And as much as its a 'what have you done for me lately' business, GM's and coaches who have been very good tend not to suddenly become very bad.

Did he make some ill-advised moves trying to beat both the salary cap and the draft system? A few.
But he did manage to extend the shelf life of this team as being a genuine contender by a decade despite the introduction of the cap and subsequent screwing of the cap rules by the NHL to punish loopholes.

If he and ownership wanted to keep the streak going and made decisions with that in mind, there aren't that many major mistakes on the resume. That's not to say we should give him a pass, and being a steady hand may not be the ideal for the immediate years - though none of us know what he would do in a rebuild because Detroit hasn't even contemplated a rebuild for 25 years until 12 months ago.

Sure, say you want a guy who is going to make bolder moves. Or a guy who is going to push for a bit more of a fire sale. Or that you'd prefer someone with a greater grasp of analytics. Or even just someone younger and hungrier who wants to think long-term about the roster 5 years + from now. Cool bananas, and my ears are open.

But people who call him incompetent repeatedly primarily because he has different priorities and approaches to them, even though he has been partially responsible for a brilliant period of success, just lost all respect I have immediately. As I say, he may not be the man of the hour, but a few relatively unimportant bad moves in recent years and a conservative approach do not make someone incompetent. Milbury? Now you can call him incompetent with my blessing.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I'm curious which of the three (Smith/Jurco/Sheahan) you wouldn't classify as a rental, whipping boy, or spare part.

Just think it's interesting that the goalposts are being moved... again. First it was that he didn't trade roster players. Then he didn't trade roster players that were actually in the lineup consistently. Then he didn't trade roster players that were well liked. Then he didn't trade roster players that were always in the lineup, well-liked and on long-term deals.

If Green gets moved, that's a significant trade, which counts (even if, by now, it's a painfully obvious one to make). But many fans have been asking for a Nyquist or Tatar trade for years, yet the defense has continued to rot. This roster had a plethora of middle six forwards that could've been packaged for a decent defenseman for years on end, but it never happened, and ultimately, that's on Holland.

Getting assets out of expendable players should be a high priority during a rebuild. The issue if you start trading actually good and useful players, especially ones that are young enough to still be apart of your team for a long time, is you need to actually get equal or better returns. If we trade Nyquist for a mid-to-late 1st we need to actually get a better player than Nyquist with that pick. I'm not sure you realize how hard that is.
And the hypothetical Nyquist/Tatar for a d-man trade idea may not have happened because there hasn't been a d-man of a high enough caliber available for those pieces. Look at Adam Larsson.

You forgot Ott and Kindl! Holland sure is hoarding those picks! Sheahan was because of the cap crunch and they offered Smith a contract (thank the heavens he rejected it). Everyone agrees the return for a misfit like Smith was outstanding but overall a 7,6, four 3's and one 2nd round pick is hardly anything to be super encouraged by. The 2nd round is the most desirable and traded asset in the NHL- the Wings have to do whatever necessary to get more of those and extra 1st's.

If this rebuild began last season it just isn't aggressive enough for the majority of the fanbase. There appears to be no desperation, no passion to contend again. Management is riding the fence. What purpose does Tatar play rebuilding the team? I like Tats but finishing in 26th place is not the time to offer 4x5.3 to a 45pt complimentary player. Observers have nothing to say but lol at the Wings questionable contracts. When was the last time Holland won a negotiation or finagled a home-town discount? Label them impatient but a lot of fans are not impressed with the club's decision-making.

Tatar is still young enough that he could be part of the team once it's rebuilt, and the contract is going to be fairly tradeable. I respect your opinion that they're "riding the fence" but there has to be a process. Do you trade everyone in order to get 20 picks in a weak 2017 draft? Or do you use a more patient approach where you keep getting 10+ picks in several drafts? The contracts aren't always pretty which is fair criticism, but also something that will look less ugly fairly soon when we have contracts like Green, Z, Kronner, E, Mrazek on the way out and likely a steady stream of ELC and RFA contracts to move into the lineup. A natural progression will happen that eventually gives us a "traditional" salary structure where a few core players eat up a lot of salary and the support is cheap. We just won't be a budget team through that progression.

Additional 1st and 2nd round picks is desirable and why I liked the Cholowski and Mantha trades. Hopefully Green returns a 1st. If we can squeeze a 2nd out of someone else that's good. Again it can't all happen in one draft year. I think if you look at teams that have rebuild successfully we are ahead of the curve in most cases in terms of the young players and assets we have this early. People look at Toronto drafting Matthews and forget important pieces of that roster were drafted years and years earlier.

 

[jkutswings]

Because a track record of good decision making suggests basic competence, which in Holland's case needs suggesting because as public speaking goes, he no great shakes. And as much as its a 'what have you done for me lately' business, GM's and coaches who have been very good tend not to suddenly become very bad.

Did he make some ill-advised moves trying to beat both the salary cap and the draft system? A few.
But he did manage to extend the shelf life of this team as being a genuine contender by a decade despite the introduction of the cap and subsequent screwing of the cap rules by the NHL to punish loopholes.

If he and ownership wanted to keep the streak going and made decisions with that in mind, there aren't that many major mistakes on the resume. That's not to say we should give him a pass, and being a steady hand may not be the ideal for the immediate years - though none of us know what he would do in a rebuild because Detroit hasn't even contemplated a rebuild for 25 years until 12 months ago.

Sure, say you want a guy who is going to make bolder moves. Or a guy who is going to push for a bit more of a fire sale. Or that you'd prefer someone with a greater grasp of analytics. Or even just someone younger and hungrier who wants to think long-term about the roster 5 years + from now. Cool bananas, and my ears are open.

But people who call him incompetent repeatedly primarily because he has different priorities and approaches to them, even though he has been partially responsible for a brilliant period of success, just lost all respect I have immediately. As I say, he may not be the man of the hour, but a few relatively unimportant bad moves in recent years and a conservative approach do not make someone incompetent. Milbury? Now you can call him incompetent with my blessing.

While I can't completely agree, kudos for a very balanced take on the matter.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Because a track record of good decision making suggests basic competence, which in Holland's case needs suggesting because as public speaking goes, he no great shakes. And as much as its a 'what have you done for me lately' business, GM's and coaches who have been very good tend not to suddenly become very bad.

Did he make some ill-advised moves trying to beat both the salary cap and the draft system? A few.
But he did manage to extend the shelf life of this team as being a genuine contender by a decade despite the introduction of the cap and subsequent screwing of the cap rules by the NHL to punish loopholes.

If he and ownership wanted to keep the streak going and made decisions with that in mind, there aren't that many major mistakes on the resume. That's not to say we should give him a pass, and being a steady hand may not be the ideal for the immediate years - though none of us know what he would do in a rebuild because Detroit hasn't even contemplated a rebuild for 25 years until 12 months ago.

Sure, say you want a guy who is going to make bolder moves. Or a guy who is going to push for a bit more of a fire sale. Or that you'd prefer someone with a greater grasp of analytics. Or even just someone younger and hungrier who wants to think long-term about the roster 5 years + from now. Cool bananas, and my ears are open.

But people who call him incompetent repeatedly primarily because he has different priorities and approaches to them, even though he has been partially responsible for a brilliant period of success, just lost all respect I have immediately. As I say, he may not be the man of the hour, but a few relatively unimportant bad moves in recent years and a conservative approach do not make someone incompetent. Milbury? Now you can call him incompetent with my blessing.

Just so i fully understand which players specifically did he bring in post cap via trade, signing or drafting that had we not had datsyuk, lidstrom and zetterberg already, would have still resulted in the same successes you speak of?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Just think it's interesting that the goalposts are being moved... again. First it was that he didn't trade roster players. Then he didn't trade roster players that were actually in the lineup consistently. Then he didn't trade roster players that were well liked. Then he didn't trade roster players that were always in the lineup, well-liked and on long-term deals.

Yeah, who cares about context or attempting to get clear definitions on things. Especially when it comes to determining what constitutes a rebuilding effort.

Trading Smith, Jurco, and Sheahan is not evidence of a rebuilding effort.

 

[Shaman464]

It can totally be both their fault.
This isn't an either or proposition.

Lack of talent hurts.
A lack of talent would make us finish around 8 to 10 in the conference.

Blashill is going to have this team near the bottom of the NHL by the end of the year.

This team is one that based purely on talent both analysts and people on this forum identified as crippling. Aside from two kids this team is either too old or too mediocre to compete for anything. Too many players are in positions where they are in over their heads and its not because of coaching decisions. Case in point this team doesn't have a #1 center or a #1 or #2 defenseman. This means that in order to not get shell the team has to play nearly perfect team defense and the goalie has to stand on their head. This, couple with pressure to make the playoffs, has meant needing to play a much more conservative style instead of a free style. The way the team is built and the marching orders from Holland means this team can not afford to make any mistakes most nights, and short of Scotty Bowman, no coach will be able to get that out of the team.

So yes, it is an either or thing. If this team is a 8-10 team than it's not Holland's fault. Because in the NHL and especially in the Atlantic this year an 8-10 IS a playoff team, and its the coaching that's failing. So you can't have it both ways.

 

[Redder Winger]

No, it's not an either or thing.
I don't buy into simplistic binary thinking.
Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, Green.
These guys have played well in the NHL.
Howard has played well.
Mrazek has played well.

Abdelkader improved this year.
But guys like Nielsen, Helm and Dekeyser have all fallen off.

And good coaches know how to make weak teams look passable.
Detroit has given up what?
23 goals in the last 10 periods of hockey?

 

[Shaman464]

No, it's not an either or thing.
I don't buy into simplistic binary thinking.
Zetterberg, Nyquist, Tatar, Green.
These guys have played well in the NHL.
Howard has played well.
Mrazek has played well.

Abdelkader improved this year.
But guys like Nielsen, Helm and Dekeyser have all fallen off.

And good coaches know how to make weak teams look passable.
Detroit has given up what?
23 goals in the last 10 periods of hockey?

Z is in his late 30s. Nyquist and Tatar are secondary pieces (read every team has their own versions of them) and Green is a shadow of his former self. Nothing in that groups are a core of a contending team. Can you name a contending team that when you think best players you have a 37 year old center, two pretty average middle 6 wingers and a #4 PMD? Didn't think so.

Howard has always been streaky and injury prone. Not a great combination for a goalie on a contending team. Mrazek is more Holland's fault, he seems to have given him the organizational kiss of death.

And this team isn't weak, its bottom 3rd of the NHL easily.

 

[Dotter]

Trading Smith, Jurco, and Sheahan is not evidence of a rebuilding effort.

I disagree. It is proving rebuilding efforts. Just not "scorched earth", "burn it down", or "Shanaplan". Which is what I gather most fans here don't want anyhow.

The typical talking point is "Wings sign mediocre UFA at deadline", which is true... but prove trade value at TDL (see Vanek). That returns free picks we otherwise wouldn't have. Also, Jim Devellano touched on this. Wings aren't attracting many UFA... Which explains why they locked down players to long contracts to help through this time of rebuild.

"And what we found when we went after unrestricted free agents this summer, for the first time, we kind of got slapped," Devellano said. [...] "people turned us down!"

And this team isn't weak, its bottom 3rd of the NHL easily.

Anyone can name 3 worse teams right now. If you said bottom 7, I might agree.

 

[Redder Winger]

I disagree. It is proving rebuilding efforts. Just not "scorched earth", "burn it down", or "Shanaplan". Which is what I gather most fans here don't want anyhow.

The typical talking point is "Wings sign mediocre UFA at deadline", which is true... but prove trade value at TDL (see Vanek). That returns free picks we otherwise wouldn't have. Also, Jim Devellano touched on this. Wings aren't attracting many UFA... Which explains why they locked down players to long contracts to help through this time of rebuild.





Anyone can name 3 worse teams right now. If you said bottom 7, I might agree.

Scorched earth? "Shanaplan?"
Shahahan took over the leafs in April 2014.
He had one bad year. 29 wins, 69 points.

The Red Wings were only marginally better than that last year - with 33 wins and 79 points.

Jeez.
Do Red Wings fans take some kind of pride in finishing 22nd?
Do you really think the entertainment value is so much better in Detroit than Buffalo?

 

[HIFE]

...This means that in order to not get shell the team has to play nearly perfect team defense and the goalie has to stand on their head. This, couple with pressure to make the playoffs, has meant needing to play a much more conservative style instead of a free style. The way the team is built and the marching orders from Holland means this team can not afford to make any mistakes most nights, and short of Scotty Bowman, no coach will be able to get that out of the team.

Blashill agrees! Thought this was amusing because several people here have posted the same opinion:
Battle drills give Red Wings needed edge

They must be "ultra-competitive" every night, Blashill said.

"There's probably some teams that can get away with maybe not that," Blashill said. "I think human nature is you're not necessarily at that line every night. But we got to be as close to that line of ultra-competitive as humanly possible. We got to be beyond the norm on that."

 

[Dotter]

Scorched earth? "Shanaplan?"
Shahahan took over the leafs in April 2014.
He had one bad year. 29 wins, 69 points.
Do you really think the entertainment value is so much better in Detroit than Buffalo?

Interesting. About Buffalo Sabres (who are worse than us this year despite "their better rebuilding efforts" the past several years)

“Frankly they tore down too much to get here,” Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News said on the Jeff Blair Show. “And that’s really what their undoing is, their bottom six is terrible. "

More proof tearing your team down can cause more harm than good.

 

[Shaman464]

I disagree. It is proving rebuilding efforts. Just not "scorched earth", "burn it down", or "Shanaplan". Which is what I gather most fans here don't want anyhow.

The typical talking point is "Wings sign mediocre UFA at deadline", which is true... but prove trade value at TDL (see Vanek). That returns free picks we otherwise wouldn't have. Also, Jim Devellano touched on this. Wings aren't attracting many UFA... Which explains why they locked down players to long contracts to help through this time of rebuild.





Anyone can name 3 worse teams right now. If you said bottom 7, I might agree.

Bottom third is 10 teams.

 

[Dotter]

Bottom third is 10 teams.

I misread your comment. Sorry.

 

[lomekian]

Just so i fully understand which players specifically did he bring in post cap via trade, signing or drafting that had we not had datsyuk, lidstrom and zetterberg already, would have still resulted in the same successes you speak of?

What a bizarre question. What he did was defined by what he had. If you have the core of a very good team, you don't go out pursuing a team core by trade. Perhaps if he had no core players he might have aggressively traded (as he used to occasionally in those days - remember Robert Lang) for some or not traded away picks, or splashed out more in FA with all his cap space.

But he did take a team that was largely populated by aging or retiring legends and build an almost entirely new team while shedding 40% of salary, making a stanley cup winning roster of the above, late 2nd or lower draft picks and other people's cast offs, at a time when everyone was saying the wings were due for a fall.

 

[jkutswings]

To be accurate, it's what Holland and the rest of the staff did. He certainly gets credit for being a key part of the organization through that era, but he didn't build it alone. Just like he didn't put the current roster where it is by himself. (He just has the job that inherently gets the lion's share of the attention, both good and bad, when it comes to team building.)

 

[Dotter]

Look at Panthers with all that talent from having multiple top #1-10 picks since 2001. And still tanking. Lol @ the people who say it doesn't take 10 years to rebuild.

 

[TheMule93]

Look at Panthers with all that talent from having multiple top #1-10 picks since 2001. And still tanking. Lol @ the people who say it doesn't take 10 years to rebuild.

Panthers aren't tanking, they're trying to win. Like us.

 

[Dotter]

Panthers aren't tanking, they're trying to win. Like us.

Wings are rebuilding. We are not tanking.

 

[Winger98]

rebuilding insinuates there is some sort of coherent plan for pushing the team forward other than "try to make the playoffs and fail miserably."

 

[Dotter]

rebuilding insinuates there is some sort of coherent plan for pushing the team forward other than "try to make the playoffs and fail miserably."

Do you feel entitled that Red Wings and/or ownership need to give you a formal press release along with their specific blueprint plan of the next 10-years?

Jim Devellano specifically called it a rebuild. And when your team sells roster players for draft picks to obtain more draft selections in one draft class than the past 20+ years, then yeah, that's definitely and undeniable rebuilding.

It just is not the specific way you personally want them to rebuild.

Sabres, for example, were under scrutiny for selling too much and it's hurting them now - proof is in the pudding. That sounds like what you want Detroit to do. Accept this and learn from other clubs mishaps, because it is a sure-fire way to set you back. Why do you want them to get set back? Wouldn't you want them to move forward as quickly as possible (and as strong as possible) to become a contender again?

"try to make the playoffs and fail miserably."

""Hey RFA's, this is Ken Holland here, we won't be making the playoffs. In fact, we are going to be miserably bad beyond words can describe... and you're going to sacrificed your body for no good of the game each and every night, and we want you to re-sign when you're an UFA for a fair home team discount. And in 10 years, we'll be contenders again... mark my words! So yeah, just stick around -- and feel free to suck at the game until then.""

Sounds like a real promising way to keep young players around, doesn't it.

 

[Winger98]

Do you feel entitled that Red Wings and/or ownership need to give you a formal press release along with their specific blueprint plan of the next 10-years?

Jim Devellano specifically called it a rebuild. And when your team sells roster players for draft picks to obtain more draft selections in one draft class than the past 20+ years, then yeah, that's definitely and undeniable rebuilding.

It just is not the specific way you personally want them to rebuild.

Sabres, for example, were under scrutiny for selling too much and it's hurting them now - proof is in the pudding. That sounds like what you want Detroit to do. Accept this and learn from other clubs mishaps, because it is a sure-fire way to set you back. Why do you want them to get set back? Wouldn't you want them to move forward as quickly as possible (and as strong as possible) to become a contender again?

""Hey RFA's, this is Ken Holland here, we won't be making the playoffs. In fact, we are going to be miserably bad beyond words can describe... and you're going to sacrificed your body for no good of the game each and every night, and we and you to resign when you're an UFA for a fair home team discount. And in 10 years, we'll be contenders again... mark my words! So yeah, just stick around.""

Sounds like a real promising way to keep young players around, doesn't it.

Jim Devellano ran his mouth about something and now you're preaching the gospel. The Wings have been talking about how they're rebuilding since at least 2013. If you want to run with everything the franchise tells you, then we're four years into your ten year rebuild, or is it not the rebuild you want?

If you're really going to try claiming this is a rebuild, then you're saying Holland blowing $80 million is a total show to cover for a team they knew couldn't win. Either he's failing miserably at putting together a playoff contender, or he's orchestrating some bizarre con, while jeopardizing the entire point of the con in the first place.

And don't get your hopes up for RFA or UFA taking any sort of discount. It didn't really happen when this team was legitimately good, and it's not going to happen now. You keep your RFA around because you own their rights. It doesn't matter if they like the direction of the club. They can sit out, but ask Athanasiou how well that works. Or even Turris who had to crawl back and start playing again before getting moved.