The Official Tank Thread III

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
You're advocating a plan that is even more reliant on luck, FYI

Don't resort to drafting where the higher percentages lie = relying more on luck

How so??? Evaluating and adjusting to a situation as it presents itself vs raw numbers that account for nothing but probabilities? I'll argue that former is the reason for Edmonton's success right now, as well as Columbus and Nashville. Toronto plays well into your favor though and you could argue that point. At the same time, I can't be sure whether Shanahan saw a huge opportunity and took advantage of it or he just plain got lucky in the very philosophy that you're proposing. Certainly though, a lot more teams have swung and missed so far. They have that very good player on their team but fans are quickly turning against those players because they seem to always fail at the aspect that a team doesn't just win on the back of one player.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
How so??? Evaluating and adjusting to a situation as it presents itself vs raw numbers that account for nothing but probabilities? I'll argue that former is the reason for Edmonton's success right now, as well as Columbus and Nashville. Toronto plays well into your favor though and you could argue that point. At the same time, I can't be sure whether Shanahan saw a huge opportunity and took advantage of it or he just plain got lucky in the very philosophy that you're proposing. Certainly though, a lot more teams have swung and missed so far. They have that very good player on their team but fans are quickly turning against those players because they seem to always fail at the aspect that a team doesn't just win on the back of one player.

Because the talent needed to fix this team (and most teams) will have to come from the draft, and there is basically a direct correlation between drafting high and expected PPG.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
You believe there isn't enough veteran 'guidance', whatever that means, on this team? Is it Z? Is he just not a leader anymore? Maybe it's Nielsen, Helm, Abbie, and Kronwall? How much bleeping veteran 'guidance' does a team need before it needs some actual talent? It's as ridiculous as the 'losing culture' crap.

Not as ridiculous as a 'winning culture' crap? Helm, Abbie and Nielsen, to a large extent, are role players. Meaning Holland see them as something a team needs regardless whether they have their scorers. Z and Kronwall are just two guys though. I don't see a problem with having a healthy balance. It sure didn't hurt having several veteran guys the last time around. Nor are they really jeopardizing the future because they're like to retire by the time we secure guys that will lead the statistical sheet. On the other hand, when youngsters show that they're either not ready or unable to step up in the roles you hoped they'd fill, they can possibly be adjusted to another role or possibly traded for another pick.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
Because the talent needed to fix this team (and most teams) will have to come from the draft, and there is basically a direct correlation between drafting high and expected PPG.

So what you're really looking for is the guy who's name you'll put on the back of the sweater you'll buy? How well does that correlates to a team that wins the cup or competes for a cup?
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
So what you're really looking for is the guy who's name you'll put on the back of the sweater you'll buy? How well does that correlates to a team that wins the cup or competes for a cup?

What the hell does that even mean?
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
So what you're really looking for is the guy who's name you'll put on the back of the sweater you'll buy? How well does that correlates to a team that wins the cup or competes for a cup?
This roster has zero chance at another championship until they land 2-3 great to elite players.

Any given top 5 pick has a very small chance at landing a player of that caliber (some better than others, depending on draft class).

Any pick lower than that has an even smaller chance at landing a player of that caliber, and the odds continue to diminish as you get lower and lower in the draft.

So why not want your best chance at getting the type of player that's paramount to any meaningful turnaround? You simply don't win the Cup without any studs, and those guys are most often drafted very very early.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
This roster has zero chance at another championship until they land 2-3 great to elite players.

Any given top 5 pick has a very small chance at landing a player of that caliber (some better than others, depending on draft class).

Any pick lower than that has an even smaller chance at landing a player of that caliber, and the odds continue to diminish as you get lower and lower in the draft.

So why not want your best chance at getting the type of player that's paramount to any meaningful turnaround? You simply don't win the Cup without any studs, and those guys are most often drafted very very early.

Current roster doesn't, I'll agree. The biggest anchor is the lack on defense in my opinion. (Most seem to agree on both sides) Holland started to heavily invest in that department as far as I see. On forward, we have a lot of question marks. Nothing but time will tell whether current youth will live up to becoming a great combination of skill, etc.. It will take time to see whether Larkin pans out as well as Athanasiou, Mantha and Svechnikov. We also have a few guys that are playing below their actual abilities they've shown. However, the can always be complimentary scorers on the team, you don't need to necessarily get rid of them.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Not as ridiculous as a 'winning culture' crap? Helm, Abbie and Nielsen, to a large extent, are role players. Meaning Holland see them as something a team needs regardless whether they have their scorers. Z and Kronwall are just two guys though. I don't see a problem with having a healthy balance. It sure didn't hurt having several veteran guys the last time around. Nor are they really jeopardizing the future because they're like to retire by the time we secure guys that will lead the statistical sheet. On the other hand, when youngsters show that they're either not ready or unable to step up in the roles you hoped they'd fill, they can possibly be adjusted to another role or possibly traded for another pick.

I have no idea what you're arguing. More veteran FAs do nothing for this team, unless they're top pairing D, or 1 or 2Cs, none of which are "ever" available in FA. Adding some more random, mediocre-to-bad FAs for "veteran guidance" is moronic on a team that's basically nothing but "veteran guidance" from it's over-28 group, most of whom are 5-6 years from retirement, depending on the ridiculous term KH had to throw at them to get them to sign here in the first place. If the kids aren't good enough, no amount of 'veteran guidance' is going to save the team, and the kids currently aren't good enough.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
It means a team doesn't live and die by a superstar.

So if the Penguins didn't have Crosby last year, they would have won the Cup?

If the Wings didn't have Lidstrom in 08, we would have won the Cup?

Just trying to understand this logic for a second.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
So if the Penguins didn't have Crosby last year, they would have won the Cup?

If the Wings didn't have Lidstrom in 08, we would have won the Cup?

Just trying to understand this logic for a second.

Both are very possible scenarios. Colorado didn't have Forsberg in 2001...

A Healthy Datsyuk doesn't guarantee us a cup in 2009...
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,682
Both are very possible scenarios. Colorado didn't have Forsberg in 2001...

A Healthy Datsyuk doesn't guarantee us a cup in 2009...

Pre-cap you could afford more stars to better off-set the loss of 1 star.

Can't do that as much anymore. I mean we literally lost the year after we won the Cup because our stars were dinged up...
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
Pre-cap you could have multiple stars to better off-set the loss of 1 star.

Can't do that as much anymore. I mean we literally lost the year after we won the Cup because our stars were dinged up...

Yes but that wasn't exclusive to one team. It was a huge hit no matter how we spin it. On the other hand, say Forsberg was on the team in 01. Do you see a possibility of Devils winning even though the scale just tipped in favor of Colorado? I certainly saw a lot of teams lose on different merits that had nothing to do with star power. Case in point, Montreal in 2010 against Washington and Pittsburgh. I remember Detroit completely dominating Pittsburgh back in 09 on a whim. The biggest reason for failure was lack of something (ambition?) in the first two periods of both game 6 and 7.
 

silkyjohnson50

Registered User
Jan 10, 2007
11,301
1,178
I don't even know what you're talking about at this point in time?

Here's what I do know.

You almost always need star players to win Cups. Not just one star player, but multiple.

Crosby had Malkin.
Kane had Toews and Keith and Hossa.
Doughty had Kopitar and peak Quick.
Chara had peak Thomas and Bergeron.
Lidstrom had Datsyuk and Zetterberg.
Yzerman had Lidstrom and Fedorov and Shanny.
Sakic had Roy and Forsberg/Bourque.
Mario and Jagr.
Gretzky had Messier.
Potvin had Trottier and Bossy.
Howe had Lindsay and Kelly and Sawchuk.
And on and on and on.

You want to win, have elite players.
You want elite players, draft early for the best chance.

Does every team with a superstar or superstars win? No. But what they do have is the basic foundation that all winning teams are built on. Not having those foundational pieces basically gives you zero chance. Kill me for wanting to win.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
I don't even know what you're talking about at this point in time?

Here's what I do know.

You almost always need star players to win Cups. Not just one star player, but multiple.

Crosby had Malkin.
Kane had Toews and Keith and Hossa.
Doughty had Kopitar and peak Quick.
Chara had peak Thomas and Bergeron.
Lidstrom had Datsyuk and Zetterberg.
Yzerman had Lidstrom and Fedorov and Shanny.
Sakic had Roy and Forsberg/Bourque.
Mario and Jagr.
Gretzky had Messier.
Potvin had Trottier and Bossy.
Howe had Lindsay and Kelly and Sawchuk.
And on and on and on.

You want to win, have elite players.
You want elite players, draft early for the best chance.

Does every team with a superstar or superstars win? No. But what they do have is the basic foundation that all winning teams are built on. Not having those foundational pieces basically gives you zero chance. Kill me for wanting to win.

Outside of a couple of teams on your list, every single one took considerable time to become assembled.

All of this is moot anyway because the problem isn't me being unable to understand that the team needs stars. That's absolutely true. You however, still seem to fail to grasp that it's not just the quantity of superstars on your team that wins you the cup. Or even makes you competitive.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
Who are the next Zetterberg and Datsyuk for Detroit? That's the point.

Maybe there isn't one. Who were Datsyuk and Zetterberg in the first few years with Detroit? Did anyone really see them as the guys to lead to a cup? Were they even close to the players they've become when just entering the league? If Larkin Svechnikov, Mantha and Athanasiou don't pan out to what we hope, there will always be a next wave. Even if we do end up leaving the draft this year with a star player there will still be a mountain to climb so, why not address several needs at once as they present themselves? More importantly, why can't it be from player development as oppose to statistical favoritism? I think I proved my point that the latter has proven to be far from proven, to say the least. Again, you can't present the successes of a theory and sweep the failures under the rug.
 
Jul 30, 2005
17,659
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
If Larkin Svechnikov, Mantha and Athanasiou don't pan out to what we hope, there will always be a next wave.
Only in the chronological sense. But if the Wings don't do some pretty specific things, there won't be another wave of Datsyuks and Zetterbergs. They'll be, well... Larkins, Manthas, and Athanasious, and we saw where that gets you. We can't just assume that great players will somehow just make their way to Detroit. Management has to do concrete things to put them there.

I don't see how signing a bunch of aging veterans enters into that. I'm also skeptical of the idea that you can develop somebody into a star that normally wouldn't be a star.
 

Invictus12

Registered User
Aug 1, 2010
3,722
208
New York
Only in the chronological sense. But if the Wings don't do some pretty specific things, there won't be another wave of Datsyuks and Zetterbergs. They'll be, well... Larkins, Manthas, and Athanasious, and we saw where that gets you. We can't just assume that great players will somehow just make their way to Detroit. Management has to do concrete things to put them there.

I don't see how signing a bunch of aging veterans enters into that. I'm also skeptical of the idea that you can develop somebody into a star that normally wouldn't be a star.

It's pretty early to jump to conclusions and again, I'd point back at where both Datsyuk and Zetterberg started from. There's also the possibility of them becoming very good players but not what we need or tradeable pieces for what we need more in the future. I don't see anything that would shut the door on significant moves. The only hold-up is whether you have something to bargain with to land a significant piece? Something along the lines of Coffey and Primeau for Shanahan back in the days.

When it comes to veteran players, well, it depends on who that Veteran is. I would never, for instance want an Alexei Kovalev to be the mentor on the team. He was always an individual player. There's a need for these kinds of players on your roster but, I personally think he'd make a bad leader, mentor, guide...

As I'm getting older myself, I realize more and more on how stupid most late-teenage, early adulthood people are. They roll their eyes at the advice of adults as a result of not understanding the fact that those adults have actually lived that age and they know all about it through actual experience. However, I also think it's a matter of integrity. In other words, the player actually does what he preaches. In this sense, I think the respect is developed and more likely a young player is to listen to the advice of the older one. Kind of like in school. We can point to statistics etc... I tend to think that the teachers that are there to teach, will go well and pay big time to students who are there to learn.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
Two things have bitten this franchise in the a** the last 5 years and will continue to do so over the next decade or more:

(1) The Wings got Datsyuk and Zetterberg late in the draft due to a combination of a special focus on Euro scouting and sheer luck. Most of the people involved in that no longer work for the Wings and the lessons of that time period have been generally learned by all teams. But people will like to pretend that there's some special magic touch to it and thus Detroit is the team for which high draft picks don't matter. Detroit can develop anyone into a star player.

(2) The NHL playoffs are the easiest to get into of any league. Mediocre teams make it into the playoffs every year. Sometimes they even trap and clutch and grab their way to a series win or two and that's then held up as an example for why making the playoffs is all that matters. So according to this line of thought if you're just outside the playoffs, you just gotta get some decent players to get you in and then your team is good to go.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
Two things have bitten this franchise in the a** the last 5 years and will continue to do so over the next decade or more:

(1) The Wings got Datsyuk and Zetterberg late in the draft due to a combination of a special focus on Euro scouting and sheer luck. Most of the people involved in that no longer work for the Wings and the lessons of that time period have been generally learned by all teams. But people will like to pretend that there's some special magic touch to it and thus Detroit is the team for which high draft picks don't matter. Detroit can develop anyone into a star player.

(2) The NHL playoffs are the easiest to get into of any league. Mediocre teams make it into the playoffs every year. Sometimes they even trap and clutch and grab their way to a series win or two and that's then held up as an example for why making the playoffs is all that matters. So according to this line of thought if you're just outside the playoffs, you just gotta get some decent players to get you in and then your team is good to go.
Completely agree.

Now just add in the theory that a player who works REALLY REALLY hard, no matter how low their talent ceiling is, is always supremely valuable, and should be a Red Wing for life, no matter the cost.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->