The Legacy of Ken Holland

[Run the Jewels]

When is the last time this team had a losing season?

Holland's got a brand new streak on his hands.

 

[Henkka]

This Chychrun thing is going to get interesting. Both knees already operated. Nice to be next Kronwall at age of 20.

And, it's pretty nice to have 4 healthy knees in Cholowski and Hronek.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Was puking when he said "...The social media world went wild for the newest Red Wings additions during draft weekend, hailing Holland as the smartest GM in the league. Not more than two days later, the tirade of Holland-themed insults arose once more in light of Mike Green still being a potential blue-liner along with Filppula and Vanek possibly returning. Once more, the fan base’s’ good opinion of Holland was short lived."

I just don't agree with the article... seems a bit sensationalized and overstated.

But that's exactly what happened. People said "OH, ZADINA, VELENO, MCISAAC SO GOOD" and then went right back to spewing toxic **** about Green and Vanek's signings. I don't understand what is sickening about this article. He's saying 100% what is happening with the fanbase. Because we aren't the top of the top of the league anymore... every single move that the vocal fans don't agree with is met with absolute scorn and derision. Like "Why sign Vanek? Now Zadina's gonna have to play in the AHL for a little bit" "Why sign Green, now we can't give Larkin 8x7.5 and hopefully be underpaying him 8 years from now?"

Draft night was "Oh man, Holland stole the show and did great work!" Next week was "How dare Holland sign X?"

People are much more willing to dog pile on a move that they don't like even if it makes sense. How many dime a dozen, mediocre players has Holland been lambasted for not "giving a chance"? Pulkkinen? Jurco? Mursak? Jarnkrok? Janmark?

 

[Henkka]

Losing Janmark and Järnkrok really killed our center depth.

We would still be SC Contenders without these devastating trades.

Losing Mursak, Nestrasil and Pulkkinen for free also killed our superior depth.

These are some of major critics Holland got few years ago. Pretty good laugh nowadays.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Would be nice to have Jarnkrok and have some semblance of center depth if Zetterberg leaves. And at a good deal, too.

Also how many people bemoaned the team losing Mursak and Pulkkinen? Nestrasil was the only one of that group that had people weirdly mad he left, but even that objection was slight compared to Janmark and Jarnkrok.

Draft night was "Oh man, Holland stole the show and did great work!" Next week was "How dare Holland sign X?

People can like certain moves and dislike others. The Zadina signing is great (though Holland getting the chance to sign him in the first place was more on outside factors out of his control) and Holland has made some really good moves recently (particularly with the Tatar trade). But we are in a weird portion of the rebuild where it is unclear exactly what Holland has planned for the future, and signings that lean the way of "gotta be competitive" are going to get a negative reaction from people who just want Holland to embrace the idea of a tank or rebuild focused mainly on the future.

 

[ricky0034]

Would be nice to have Jarnkrok and have some semblance of center depth if Zetterberg leaves. And at a good deal, too.

Also how many people bemoaned the team losing Mursak and Pulkkinen? Nestrasil was the only one of that group that had people weirdly mad he left, but even that objection was slight compared to Janmark and Jarnkrok.



People can like certain moves and dislike others. The Zadina signing is great (though Holland getting the chance to sign him in the first place was more on outside factors out of his control) and Holland has made some really good moves recently (particularly with the Tatar trade). But we are in a weird portion of the rebuild where it is unclear exactly what Holland has planned for the future, and signings that lean the way of "gotta be competitive" are going to get a negative reaction from people who just want Holland to embrace the idea of a tank or rebuild focused mainly on the future.

even the Nestrasil thing was more about waiving him while keeping Cleary around than it was about waiving him in and of itself

 

[SCD]

The question is can the player development group ( Horcoff & co) identify players that are unlikely to reach their potential early enough to trade them while they still have value. Granted, you might occasional miss a late bloomer like Eaves. But, what was Jurco or Pulkkinen's trade value early on in the AHL ?

 

[Dotter]

The question is can the player development group ( Horcoff & co) identify players that are unlikely to reach their potential early enough to trade them while they still have value. Granted, you might occasional miss a late bloomer like Eaves. But, what was Jurco or Pulkkinen's trade value early on in the AHL ?

Is fleecing GMs around the NHL every year a good way to build/maintain a positive reputation?

 

[Claypool]

The question is can the player development group ( Horcoff & co) identify players that are unlikely to reach their potential early enough to trade them while they still have value. Granted, you might occasional miss a late bloomer like Eaves. But, what was Jurco or Pulkkinen's trade value early on in the AHL ?

You're talking about Patrick Eaves? What exactly did the Red Wings miss there? I'm confused.

As for Jurco or Pulkkinen, other teams are scouting those players, too, even when they're in the minors. You can't hide a guy somewhere. The only recent example of this working was Edmonton trading for Griffin Reinhart but it's Edmonton, so who knows.

 

[SCD]

Both Eaves and Cleary became decent utility players after several teams gave up on them early in there careers....ie late bloomers.

If a team shows interest in a player that has been identified as unlikely to succeed, dump him. Teams scouted Smith, teams scouted Tatar, but the deals still occurred.

Is fleecing GMs around the NHL every year a good way to build/maintain a positive reputation?

Are you really serious that it is all about building relationships? How does fleecing NYR with the Smith deal build a positive relationship? It is still early, but the Tatar deal looks pretty one-sided.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Both Eaves and Cleary became decent utility players after several teams gave up on them early in there careers....ie late bloomers.

If a team shows interest in a player that has been identified as unlikely to succeed, dump him. Teams scouted Smith, teams scouted Tatar, but the deals still occurred.



Are you really serious that it is all about building relationships? How does fleecing NYR with the Smith deal build a positive relationship? It is still early, but the Tatar deal looks pretty one-sided.

Because those weren't fleecing teams for the sake of fleecing them. NYR wanted a D. The Wings had a D. They leveraged the deadline to get them to pay up. Same with Tatar. Those trades were the Wings using negotiating power to get the best deal they could.

What you are saying is that the Wings should identify guys at the AHL level that they think will suck and trade them before the bottom falls out. In essence, you're telling them to deal in bad faith. "We know this guy is ****, but we're really hoping that you don't notice that he's ****".

It's silly nonsense.

1) If a team is looking to trade for an AHL player, they are going to scout him too. They're not going to buy a young kid sight unseen. If there is the slightest inkling that his game won't translate to the National league, the team isn't going to give you a damn thing for him. The only way you'd get "value" in a trade like this is if you somehow determined right this second that Zadina wasn't going to make it and you dealt him. A guy like Nestrasil or Pulkkinen would never have worthwhile value before you could make your own determination on their ability to suceed.

2) You're asking player development guys to be fortune tellers, which is ridiculous.

 

[ricky0034]

Is fleecing GMs around the NHL every year a good way to build/maintain a positive reputation?

yeah good point,lets bring in Bergevin and do the opposite

imagine how good a relationship we could have with Chicago if we traded Larkin for Toews

 

[SCD]

You're asking player development guys to be fortune tellers, which is ridiculous.

I would bet by the end of their second fall camp as 19 year olds, Horcoff has a pretty good read on a player's long term potential.

You are never going to get value for a prospect if you openly try to market them. That would be a red flag. But in the process of trying to obtain someone or move up in the draft, if the other team identifies a player Horcoff has red flagged, they should be moved. It would be crazy to think Detroit should warn the other team of these concerns. Pulkkinen had value as a first year AHLer. The question is whether the team had concerns about his development at that point. I believe they did. You have to be willing to move some of these kids early and occasionally be wrong. You have to be willing to withstand the wrath of the fans who will complain you just lost a high scoring AHLer and our future. The team would maintain a higher prospect pool by cutting bait early.

Holland has not really lost many valuable prospects in trades. It has been mostly high draft picks that became valuable.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I would bet by the end of their second fall camp as 19 year olds, Horcoff has a pretty good read on a player's long term potential.

You are never going to get value for a prospect if you openly try to market them. That would be a red flag. But in the process of trying to obtain someone or move up in the draft, if the other team identifies a player Horcoff has red flagged, they should be moved. It would be crazy to think Detroit should warn the other team of these concerns. Pulkkinen had value as a first year AHLer. The question is whether the team had concerns about his development at that point. I believe they did. You have to be willing to move some of these kids early and occasionally be wrong. You have to be willing to withstand the wrath of the fans who will complain you just lost a high scoring AHLer and our future. The team would maintain a higher prospect pool by cutting bait early.

Holland has not really lost many valuable prospects in trades. It has been mostly high draft picks that became valuable.

And I would bet that they'll have no clue about a 19 year old's long term potential. And it's not Detroit letting them know about their concerns. If Detroit has concerns about the growth path of a 19 year old, you can damn well bet the house that the teams they'd be looking to trade with would see the same thing. Teams don't just look at a list of prospects and try to trade for a guy unseen. If they're interested, they're gonna check out his AHL games. They're gonna ask around about him.

Pulkkinen had no material value as a prospect to another team. He was a slowish forward with an inaccurate cannon of a shot. It's why he was there in the 4th round to begin with. That was Detroit's problem for a long time. They had a litany of guys who had more value to Detroit in a Wings sweater (a little) than they would in a deal (none).

Lastly, what I was talking about is if you're planning on trying to trade lemons to other teams and are praying to god the other team doesn't realize it's a lemon, that's dirty dealing. And well, if the Wings were to offer up Filip Zadina right now (hint: they won't), you would have a good number of suitors offering something good. You will always get value from elite assets and will never get value for dime-a-dozen replaceable assets.

 

[SCD]

Unlike Frk, Pulkkinen has a pretty accurate cannon of a shot. His slow release and poor skating made it difficult for him to find open ice to get his shot off in the NHL.

Scouts and teams will value skill sets differently, and sometimes overlook or under estimate weaknesses of players. Scouts don't get to watch the players in practice. They don't see how they respond to coach's challenges. They only get a snap shot of the player in games. How else do you explain moving a Smith or Jurco or Kindl and they quickly exit NHL?

 

[ricky0034]

Unlike Frk, Pulkkinen has a pretty accurate cannon of a shot. His slow release and poor skating made it difficult for him to find open ice to get his shot off in the NHL.

Scouts and teams will value skill sets differently, and sometimes overlook or under estimate weaknesses of players. Scouts don't get to watch the players in practice. They don't see how they respond to coach's challenges. They only get a snap shot of the player in games. How else do you explain moving a Smith or Jurco or Kindl and they quickly exit NHL?

I couldn't disagree with this more

Pulkkinen had horrific shot accuracy,that was like one of the main reasons I always thought that Pulkkinen's shot was overrated and he wouldn't stick in the NHL

he had a hard shot for sure and that's enough to do well in the lower levels but it's just not enough in the NHL

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It didn't matter how accurate his shot was. He took too long to shoot and it didn't translate to the NHL.

 

[SCD]

It didn't matter how accurate his shot was. He took too long to shoot and it didn't translate to the NHL.

Exactly. It was always more about release than accuracy.

Now certainly his skating was an issue as well.

 

[Henkka]

Reach was Pulkkinen's biggest issue. He was useless without the puck.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Reach was Pulkkinen's biggest issue. He was useless without the puck.

This. Added with poor skating, small, a five second wined up and you will a career AHLer in North America.

 

[Retire91]

This article made me puke:

https://thehockeywriters.com/detroit-red-wings-fans-opinion-holland/

Really not a support of articles that just chalk this up as fair wheather fans or mob mentality. The decline of the red wings was notable and predictable over the last 10 years. Its not even about debating the good or bad of one specific move over another. Its about the moves like constantly trading down in the draft and constantly trading away picks for doomed playoff runs that told the story. This organization would rather stay mediocre than build another champion. And in the process it was going to go slow and steady to a bottom that was going to be hard to crawl out of. Now with the lottery system even if they are bad they have to get lucky to get a top 3 pick. Heck even their first season with a lottery pick its an expansion year that pushes them a spot up further. That isn't the right kind of luck. Fans down on Holland have a solid foundaiton for questioning his legacy. When he had a blank check, some legendary home runs in the late draft, first dibs on the Russian exodus to build a HOF roster sure he has a legendary record. Soon as the cap hit he doesn't seem to understand how to stay relivant. Not sure if half your career should get you in the HOF when the other half shows some pretty heafty ineptitude. Sure he is a lock and hockey town can celebrate, just saying if I had a vote he wouldn't get in. Wings fans didn't deserve the last 10 years and maybe the next 10, that is all on Holland. P.S. f spellcheck

 

[SCD]

Iconstantly trading down in the draft

It is more about trading away draft picks then trading down

In 2011, the trade of their first round pick for two seconds cost us a chance at Nemestnikov, otherwise not much of value. Nothing came out of the extra picks, but that is another argument.

In 2013 and 2016, I would say the organization did well by trading down.

 

[Sun1126]

Holland is one of the worst GM's of all time in the salary cap era. I can't believe he's still the GM, Lidstrom Datsyuk Babcock are not around to carry the team anymore and he cant make a trade for his life. Yzerman will save the wings. Holland's legacy has been destroyed in my opinion

 

[Henkka]

Holland is one of the worst GM's of all time in the salary cap era. I can't believe he's still the GM, Lidstrom Datsyuk Babcock are not around to carry the team anymore and he cant make a trade for his life. Yzerman will save the wings. Holland's legacy has been destroyed in my opinion

How can somebody be worst GM, if he wins a Stanley Cup under salary cap? Please tell us.

Only 7 GMs have won a Stanley cup under salary cap.

Jim Rutherford (2006, 2016,2017)
Bryan Burke (2007)
Ken Holland (2008)
Ray Shero (2009)
Stan Bowman (2010,2013,2015)
Dean Lombardi (2012, 2014)
Brian McLellan (2018)

 

[Sun1126]

That was the roster bowman set him up with, he didnt do anything. Look up his entire trade history, you'll see how bad he is. He's not an active GM. Was given a legendary roster to work with. Now with the end of that era, this is his team now, worst defense core in the league since Lidstrom retired. Steady decline and finally crashed to the bottom, if he was a great GM, wings would not be in this position today. Babcock left because he knew team will continue to trend downwards because of him.