Post-Game Talk: The first step to losing is trying

[Retire91]

If they wanted to reload then reload. Reloading isn't signing Bertuzzi, Samuleson, Cleary, Alfredson, Weiss, Neilson. Reloading isn't trading your prospects and picks to get into the playoffs as a bubble team. Reloading isn't trading a 1st for KFQ

 

[TheMule93]

The reload hinged on Nyquist and Tatar being like 3x the players they actually are

 

[WingedWheel1987]

My issue is the Wings didn't reload or rebuild over the past five years. They made very low risk signings when the roster needed high risk/high reward signings to give them any chance of actually making any noise in the playoffs.

They sat on the fence and expected the results to be different next year.

If the Wings weren't willing to blow it up after Suter rejected Detroit, then they needed to be very aggressive through FA and trades, but they did the opposite. They made moves that didn't realistically improve their odds of winning in the playoffs. They made moves that only improved their odds of making the playoffs. It's very to spot the difference between the two.

Now I can appreciate why they did that, but at the same time I can call out that line of reasoning as being very unRed Wing like.

When people say the nay sayers lack patience, I laugh because today's NHL doesn't allow for 5+ year rebuilds.

Either the Wings rebuild in roughly five years or they are just perpetually rebuilding every five years and never get anywhere.

What's happening this season was the most likely end result of trying to rebuild on the fly. A slow but steady decline where the bottom eventually fell out when the Wings previous generation of elite talent either got too old or retired.

My only hope is this season allows management to start planning for the future again. Otherwise this season will be another waste of time. Just like the previous five seasons.

If Vanek isn't moved by the TDL, that should terrify fans that haven't lowered their standards for success.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Also 2 shifts in the third

Where do you find this info out at? How many did Mr. Sheahan have in the 3rd?

**However if this is how we lose and get AA on a decent priced contract I think our future is bright..keep playing Sheahan...25+ a nice ***

According to NHL.com, AA had 8 shifts in the 3rd. I didn't really pay attention to the 3rd so I wouldn't be able to say if thats correct or not.

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20162017/TV020806.HTM

 

[Pavels Dog]

So they've substituted quick fix trades with bad signings and mediocre to bad drafting.

I'd take a bad FA signing over a bad trade, because at least in FA you don't give up more than cap space.

Take this for example:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-trade-tree-alexander-steen/

It's the beginning of the 2008-09 season. The Leafs had a great stretch of consistent playoff contention, regularly made the second round, and had two conference final appearances in 1999 and 2002.

The 2004-05 season is lost to the lockout. When hockey resumes, there's a salary cap.

The Leafs miss the playoffs by one point in 2005-06. Shoot! All right, don't panic.

The Leafs miss the playoffs by one point in 2006-07. Darn! Well key free agent signing Michael Peca got injured and we still almost made it. Keep cool.

Then in 2007-08 the Leafs finish 12th in the Eastern Conference and 11 points out of the playoffs.

Uh oh. We might suck.

John Ferguson Jr. is fired in January 2008 and Cliff Fletcher takes over as Leafs GM in the interim. In the tale of the tragedy that has been the last decade in Leaf Land, most fans seem to forget that ever happened. John Ferguson Jr., Brian Burke, and even Dave Nonis all get heat but many skip over the fact that Cliff Fletcher was the Leafs' GM (again) for 10 months in 2008.

Fletcher sold veterans for draft picks at the 2008 trade deadline. He traded up in the draft to get Luke Schenn at fifth overall. He acquired Mikhail Grabovski. He managed to ship Bryan McCabe's contract to Florida. He signed Jeff Finger. Then in his final move as Leafs GM, Fletcher traded forward Alexander Steen and defender Carlo Colaiacovo to the St. Louis Blues for Lee Stempniak.

They gave up a 2nd and 3rd along with their 1st for the 5th pick; Luke Schenn. If they kept their picks, they could have drafted:

1st round: Tyler Myers/Erik Karlsson (both available, they could even have traded down a few picks)
2nd round: Roman Josi (taken with the pick they gave up)
3rd round: Adam Henrique

Obviously that's a perfect scenario, but even hitting on ONE of those players instead of going all-in on Luke Schenn would have been better than what they did.

They traded Steen for a veteran. They traded Tukka Rask for Raycroft. And because Raycroft was so bad, they needed another goalie, so they traded a 1st, 2nd and 4th for VESA TOSKALA.

Are you keeping track? They gave up:

- Tukka Rask
- Alexander Steen
- Two 1st round picks
- Three 2nd round picks
- 3rd round pick
- 4th round pick

And what they got was:

- Andrew Raycroft
- Vesa Toskala
- Luke Schenn
- Lee Stempniak
- Mikhail Grabovski

And that is BEFORE Burke came in and traded away Anton Stralman and a bunch of picks (including one that became Brandon Saad) to acquire Kessel.

If they wanted to reload then reload. Reloading isn't signing Bertuzzi, Samuleson, Cleary, Alfredson, Weiss, Neilson. Reloading isn't trading your prospects and picks to get into the playoffs as a bubble team. Reloading isn't trading a 1st for KFQ

Those veterans were filling holes in the roster as we developed prospects. This is a key part of a good rebuild that even a team like Toronto used (for example allowing Nylander/Marner/Brown/etc more time to grow in lower leagues). We traded surplus prospects, Jarnkrok/Backman/Janmark/etc would do absolutely nothing for this team. The 1st for Quincey may not be a great looking trade, but in truth Quincey was good for us and I think his absence from the team this year is noticeable (Dekeyser-Quincey was actually a good shutdown pairing).
Over the last 5-6 years we've basically traded a bare minimum of prospects/picks in order to stay somewhat competitive while also rebuilding through the draft and trying to develop our prospects in a good way (unfortunately our veterans fell off a little too soon causing us to rush Larkin/Jurco/Mrazek a bit too much).

 

[Flowah]

The reload hinged on Nyquist and Tatar being like 3x the players they actually are

If they were 2x the players they currently are, they're literally PPG players.

They're both at about a .5, ~41 point pace. Not great, but not dismal. They were never ever going to be PPG guys. At best they were going to cap out at ~70 points. More realistically they're 50-60 players.

If our reload hinged on 50-60 point *wingers* or hinged on them turning into PPG monsters then we made a really stupid bet. I don't think even most fans' expectations of Nyquist/Tatar were that inflated, and usually we're the ones overhyping our guys.

 

[jkutswings]

I'd take a bad FA signing over a bad trade, because at least in FA you don't give up more than cap space.

Take this for example:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-trade-tree-alexander-steen/


They gave up a 2nd and 3rd along with their 1st for the 5th pick; Luke Schenn. If they kept their picks, they could have drafted:

1st round: Tyler Myers/Erik Karlsson (both available, they could even have traded down a few picks)
2nd round: Roman Josi (taken with the pick they gave up)
3rd round: Adam Henrique

Obviously that's a perfect scenario, but even hitting on ONE of those players instead of going all-in on Luke Schenn would have been better than what they did.

They traded Steen for a veteran. They traded Tukka Rask for Raycroft. And because Raycroft was so bad, they needed another goalie, so they traded a 1st, 2nd and 4th for VESA TOSKALA.

Are you keeping track? They gave up:

- Tukka Rask
- Alexander Steen
- Two 1st round picks
- Three 2nd round picks
- 3rd round pick
- 4th round pick

And what they got was:

- Andrew Raycroft
- Vesa Toskala
- Luke Schenn
- Lee Stempniak
- Mikhail Grabovski

And that is BEFORE Burke came in and traded away Anton Stralman and a bunch of picks (including one that became Brandon Saad) to acquire Kessel.


Those veterans were filling holes in the roster as we developed prospects. This is a key part of a good rebuild that even a team like Toronto used (for example allowing Nylander/Marner/Brown/etc more time to grow in lower leagues). We traded surplus prospects, Jarnkrok/Backman/Janmark/etc would do absolutely nothing for this team. The 1st for Quincey may not be a great looking trade, but in truth Quincey was good for us and I think his absence from the team this year is noticeable (Dekeyser-Quincey was actually a good shutdown pairing).

Over the last 5-6 years we've basically traded a bare minimum of prospects/picks in order to stay somewhat competitive while also rebuilding through the draft and trying to develop our prospects in a good way (unfortunately our veterans fell off a little too soon causing us to rush Larkin/Jurco/Mrazek a bit too much).

But the whole point is that they haven't rebuilt a single thing. No facet of the game is either currently as good as, or on track to be equal to (let alone better) in the near future, than it was 5 years ago.

They are continuing to base things on the expectation that draft stock that realistically yields 2nd and 3rd line players will somehow yield multiple 1st liners. That's either arrogance, ineptitude, or indifference...and with the team where it is now, I have no interest in such nonsense, regardless of the reason behind it.

 

[Retire91]

I'd take a bad FA signing over a bad trade, because at least in FA you don't give up more than cap space.

Take this for example:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-trade-tree-alexander-steen/


They gave up a 2nd and 3rd along with their 1st for the 5th pick; Luke Schenn. If they kept their picks, they could have drafted:

1st round: Tyler Myers/Erik Karlsson (both available, they could even have traded down a few picks)
2nd round: Roman Josi (taken with the pick they gave up)
3rd round: Adam Henrique

Obviously that's a perfect scenario, but even hitting on ONE of those players instead of going all-in on Luke Schenn would have been better than what they did.

They traded Steen for a veteran. They traded Tukka Rask for Raycroft. And because Raycroft was so bad, they needed another goalie, so they traded a 1st, 2nd and 4th for VESA TOSKALA.

Are you keeping track? They gave up:

- Tukka Rask
- Alexander Steen
- Two 1st round picks
- Three 2nd round picks
- 3rd round pick
- 4th round pick

And what they got was:

- Andrew Raycroft
- Vesa Toskala
- Luke Schenn
- Lee Stempniak
- Mikhail Grabovski

And that is BEFORE Burke came in and traded away Anton Stralman and a bunch of picks (including one that became Brandon Saad) to acquire Kessel.


Those veterans were filling holes in the roster as we developed prospects. This is a key part of a good rebuild that even a team like Toronto used (for example allowing Nylander/Marner/Brown/etc more time to grow in lower leagues). We traded surplus prospects, Jarnkrok/Backman/Janmark/etc would do absolutely nothing for this team. The 1st for Quincey may not be a great looking trade, but in truth Quincey was good for us and I think his absence from the team this year is noticeable (Dekeyser-Quincey was actually a good shutdown pairing).
Over the last 5-6 years we've basically traded a bare minimum of prospects/picks in order to stay somewhat competitive while also rebuilding through the draft and trying to develop our prospects in a good way (unfortunately our veterans fell off a little too soon causing us to rush Larkin/Jurco/Mrazek a bit too much).

I never really agreed with the way Toronto rebuilt. I thought they were too careless with their draft picks and they also traded away prospects before they really knew what they had. The shanaplan is a much more effective way to rebuild. Commit to your youth and the draft. I thought they ruined their future even before Burke came aboard. Your list didn't even include Seuigin and Hamilton although considering they got a lot out of Kessel it wasn't a complete loss, but in terms of the team's future it was a horrible trade. They went from a pseudo reload to a full on reload to a full on rebuild when they could have just went to a full on rebuild and got it over with. That is what the wings should have done as hard as that was to admit being a perennial playoff team. We needed an organization strong enough to admit the window closed.

I think we have opposite views on the problems with the wings but I think we can agree in one spot and that is Holland's drafting didn't get the job done if a reload was the target. They didn't hit on any more great to elite players soon enough to replace the loss of 2 and soon 3 HOF players. I personally feel that was a bad gamble to make because now its a larger hole to dig out of but that's just me Although I don't agree with you I am not saying I don't understand how you feel if that makes any sense.

 

[SoupNazi]

I really wish people would stop equating the terms, "rebuild" and "blew it up".

Okay.

All those words and you still dodged the question. When was the last time a team with 48 wins and 102 points the previous season tore it down and started a rebuild?

 

[Frk It]

I mean.... they could have not done the deadline trades that saw us sending 2nd, 3rd round picks away. That would have been a good start.

They could have not handcuffed themselves with this Abby, Helm, and apparently Dekeyser contract.

They didn't have to deal Z/D. They could have just not kept doing their hanging on for dear life to make the playoffs nonsense.

I'd have liked to have done all of those things. I don't think our draft position would have changed much, and I don't think we would have done drastically different in UFA or trades as a result.

So I don't see how we would be in a much different spot regardless.

 

[jkutswings]

Okay.

All those words and you still dodged the question. When was the last time a team with 48 wins and 102 points the previous season tore it down and started a rebuild?

My point was that they needed to pick a direction and go with it, not sit on their hands.

But to address how recently a team made a tough decision, despite high success? June 30, 2015.

Only 15 days after winning the Stanley Cup, Chicago dealt Saad's rights to Columbus. Despite his 23 goals and 52 points, they spun him off, rather than (they deemed) overpay a player not (in their estimation) part of their core.

And the Blackhawks had exactly 102 points that year.

Had Detroit shaken things up, EITHER to reload OR rebuild, I would've understood. But kicking tires for a few years, then telling fans less is more, is a bunch of garbage.

And one more thing.

Early in the playoff streak, there was all sorts of discussion as to whether they should trade Yzerman, since some felt at the time that he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

Then in the mid-2000s, there were rumblings about whether Datsyuk should stick around, again with questions about playoff performance.

Now? The team is a corpse in the postseason, and yet no roster players above waiver fodder even get seriously questioned by the organization, let alone get dealt.

The Wings as an organization have grown fat on their laurels. And those laurels are getting further and further away in the rearview mirror.

 

[Claypool]

My point was that they needed to pick a direction and go with it, not sit on their hands.

But to address how recently a team made a tough decision, despite high success? June 30, 2015.

Only 15 days after winning the Stanley Cup, Chicago dealt Saad's rights to Columbus. Despite his 23 goals and 52 points, they spun him off, rather than (they deemed) overpay a player not (in their estimation) part of their core.

And the Blackhawks had exactly 102 points that year.

Had Detroit shaken things up, EITHER to reload OR rebuild, I would've understood. But kicking tires for a few years, then telling fans less is more, is a bunch of garbage.

And one more thing.

Early in the playoff streak, there was all sorts of discussion as to whether they should trade Yzerman, since some felt at the time that he couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

Then in the mid-2000s, there were rumblings about whether Datsyuk should stick around, again with questions about playoff performance.

Now? The team is a corpse in the postseason, and yet no roster players above waiver fodder even get seriously questioned by the organization, let alone get dealt.

The Wings as an organization have grown fat on their laurels. And those laurels are getting further and further away in the rearview mirror.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[jkutswings]

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Personal attacks aside, please instruct me.

Did I miss some flurry of proactive brilliance on the part of the front office? Is there a soon-to-be elite center or defenseman I missed out on? Perhaps even a strong indication that the Wings have admitted this latest era didn't work out, and they are finally prepared to significantly change direction?

I know full well that anything even vaguely resembling a rebuild after 2012 would have been WILDLY unpopular.

And yet it couldn't possibly have left them any more irrelevant than they are in the here and now.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Pretty sure they couldn't afford Saad in the first place, hence why the return wasn't quite worth the asset they were giving up.

 

[TheMule93]

You have no clue what you're talking about.

enlighten us

 

[Claypool]

Personal attacks aside, please instruct me.

Did I miss some flurry of proactive brilliance on the part of the front office? Is there a soon-to-be elite center or defenseman I missed out on? Perhaps even a strong indication that the Wings have admitted this latest era didn't work out, and they are finally prepared to significantly change direction?

I know full well that anything even vaguely resembling a rebuild after 2012 would have been WILDLY unpopular.

And yet it couldn't possibly have left them any more irrelevant than they are in the here and now.

They had to trade Saad because they couldn't fit him under the cap.

I think it's dumb that you try to pass off your ideas on what management should do four years after the fact. I mean hell, why not proclaim a rebuild after the 2009 run? Should have traded Zetterberg instead of signing him to that 12-year deal.

Holland has stated what the plan is/was for this team the past three years or so. Try to move younger players into the lineup while remaining competitive. That was the plan.

 

[jkutswings]

They had to trade Saad because they couldn't fit him under the cap.

I think it's dumb that you try to pass off your ideas on what management should do four years after the fact. I mean hell, why not proclaim a rebuild after the 2009 run? Should have traded Zetterberg instead of signing him to that 12-year deal.

Holland has stated what the plan is/was for this team the past three years or so. Try to move younger players into the lineup while remaining competitive. That was the plan.

Who said anything about after the fact? I was vocal about it at the time, and I was ridiculed by fans that were convinced that Detroit's lifespan as a true Cup contender had several years left.

No offense, to you or anybody else, but I don't care what's popular, or what the owner is interested in, or how fans in general react to a given decision. For 5 years now, I think they've been conservative to the point of self destruction, and it seems like the bottom falling out is the only way they might change things, so I'm rooting for the bottom to fall out.

And competitive to me doesn't mean squeak in and get promptly bounced. Their postseason play has been more sacrificial than competitive.

You're perfectly entitled to disagree. But I think we can definitely both say that the results have been less than inspiring, and that we want more from the organization.

 

[Retire91]

The way I see it is Holland is not going to trade for elite talent, he is not going to sign elite talent, and he is not finding elite talent drafting 15+. The only way I see to get elite talent that is not relying on Holland to be good at his job is drafting in the top 5. This is why I want to see them draft in the top 5. Not because I want them to loose its because I want elite talent when I have no faith in my GM.

 

[Brick Top]

they had to trade saad because they couldn't fit him under the cap.

I think it's dumb that you try to pass off your ideas on what management should do four years after the fact. I mean hell, why not proclaim a rebuild after the 2009 run? Should have traded zetterberg instead of signing him to that 12-year deal.

Holland has stated what the plan is/was for this team the past three years or so. Try to move younger players into the lineup while remaining competitive. that was the plan.

View attachment 93869

... except when it doesn't

 

[Pavels Dog]

But the whole point is that they haven't rebuilt a single thing. No facet of the game is either currently as good as, or on track to be equal to (let alone better) in the near future, than it was 5 years ago.

It would have been by far the greatest achievement in sports history if Holland had perfectly rebuilt the team ONCE AGAIN within a span of 5 years without missing the playoffs. We would be talking about the playoff streak possibly reaching 40-50 years and I'd have a picture of Holland tattooed all over my chest.
But the team has gotten younger each year, we've had more and more rookies stepping in, we've been drafting higher and higher and being less active at the TDL, and now we're getting to draft in the top 10. A rebuild takes more than 5 years, but if we can add 1-2 high-end players to this group we might avoid spending 5-10 years in the basement.

 

[avssuc]

I'd say the comparison to the Burke years is eerily similar:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/443548

LOL, that can't be real, too good to be real.

Did he 'like his team'?

 

[jkutswings]

LOL, that can't be real, too good to be real.

Did he 'like his team'?

There really should be a gif of him partying with Lee Stempniak and Martin Gerber. Grab me some mediocre vets!

 

[Red Stanley]

The players on every NHL team, from Washington to Colorado, want to win every game. That's their job.

That doesn't change the fact that some teams are better off building for the future, rather than blindly clinging to the present. That's management's job.

That's why they should've traded everyone who wanted to win a little too much, eh? Stupid winning culture ruining our imaginary #brightfuture. The management must be so blind. After all they can't see that what you want is the only valid thing worth wanting. Even crappy Colorado wants it. I mean they surely want to win every game and the cup every year, unlike Holland, who's just too blind to see what he should want.

 

[jkutswings]

That's why they should've traded everyone who wanted to win a little too much, eh? Stupid winning culture ruining our imaginary #brightfuture. The management must be so blind. After all they can't see that what you want is the only valid thing worth wanting. Even crappy Colorado wants it. I mean they surely want to win every game and the cup every year, unlike Holland, who's just too blind to see what he should want.

What are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with getting rid of players that want to win, because, like I just said, they ALL want to win.

It's as simple as realizing you need to either add a piece, or make a trade, or do something tangible yet manageable (aka, NOT blowing things up, but doing your job and proactively improving the team).

Dealing either Nyquist or Tatar for a defenseman isn't tanking. Giving Mantha and AA more minutes than Sheahan isn't blowing things up. Those are sensible moves to put a better product on the ice.

But when they continue to be so extremely risk averse, as the team continues to slide, that's a bad job on their part.

Even if a given method has been historically successful, when the approach suddenly isn't working to the same degree, and continues to work less and less...stop banging your head against the same wall, and do something significantly different. It shouldn't take a bottom-5 finish to realize that late draft picks that haven't yielded high-end talent in a decade, probably won't buck the trend going forward and start yielding said talent.

 

[Red Stanley]

What are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with getting rid of players that want to win, because, like I just said, they ALL want to win.

It's as simple as realizing you need to either add a piece, or make a trade, or do something tangible yet manageable (aka, NOT blowing things up, but doing your job and proactively improving the team).

Dealing either Nyquist or Tatar for a defenseman isn't tanking. Giving Mantha and AA more minutes than Sheahan isn't blowing things up. Those are sensible moves to put a better product on the ice.

But when they continue to be so extremely risk averse, as the team continues to slide, that's a bad job on their part.

Even if a given method has been historically successful, when the approach suddenly isn't working to the same degree, and continues to work less and less...stop banging your head against the same wall, and do something significantly different. It shouldn't take a bottom-5 finish to realize that late draft picks that haven't yielded high-end talent in a decade, probably won't buck the trend going forward and start yielding said talent.

That's what I said: trade the players who want to win too much. That's the definition of tanking. You're either blaming the players who refuse to not make the playoffs, or management for not intentionally tanking. Unless your point was that all players want to win equally as much, therefore talent is the only thing that matters (Valtteri Filppula says hi). In that case it's clearly talent that we lack. How is he supposed to trade for elite talent when he has nothing but picks to trade? I thought you guys didn't want him to trade picks in the first place, anyway. But then again, why would we want to keep those picks if they have been bland and will, apparently, continue to be bland?

If your point was that Holland sucks, your argument is all over the place. My point is that he had a plan following the championship run. It didn't work, so he switched to a short-term plan, which has worked in some respects and not so much in others. End result: a slow slide in the standings. You wanted him to commit to a rebuild faster and with focus on the future. Great. I don't like a lot of the things he's done, either. That doesn't necessarily mean he is stupid, incompetent, or blind. The goal was there, whether you and I agree with it or not. If he continues down the same path AFTER we miss, you'd have a case.