The Official Tank Thread III

[Flowah]

Bolded the only relevant part in your lengthy rant. Do try to keep it shorter and to the point next time, please. Thanks.

The point was there. You just seem to have missed it. Can't say that's surprising.

You seem obsessed with the idea of "what have you accomplished?" Well what has Connor McDavid accomplished? Would you not want him either? He's not a winner. He's never won anything at the NHL level. Is Connor McDavid "not relevant" because he's never accomplished anything at the NHL level?

Seriously, answer this question. I mean, I'll understand if you don't. I get the feeling you realize how wrong you are but you're just too stubborn to admit it now and you're doubling down.

Leafs could have 5 years of being a borderline playoff team and their fans would still be happy.

I don't think this is true.

I saw how Leafs fans on various boards responded to Shanahan's and Babcock's words. They were pleased as punch. They don't want to be a bubble team they want to be a contender. Everyone does. I think even the most playoff starved fans know that making the playoffs only to be knocked out in 5-6 games isn't much of an improvement over not making the playoffs. How much joy does anyone get out of that?

No, it's when they [fans] stop grabbing their money and vote with their wallets. Ilitches aren't billionaires because they're idiots when it comes to money. Last I checked, hockey isn't just a game; it's a business. Effective and successful people/organizations know when to hold and know when to fold. Red Wings (from business standpoint) apparently aren't ready to fold.

What do you personally think? What do you think the Wings management should do to be competitive for the cup ASAP? Let's not talk about the business side of things because we're just fans of the team and the sport. We're not going to get any money out of this venture. The only thing we get is joy from watching our team succeed.

To that end, I want to know what you believe is the best course of action. You have throughout the season been pretty against the tank. Now it seems like you're coming around but clinging to the idea that the team hasn't sucked hard long enough to justify it from a business standpoint as a sort of middle ground. It acknowledges the need for a tank, perhaps, but without openly saying so and with the economic defense. But again, none of us have any financial stake in the Wings. Last I looked the vast majority of us are talking about what it takes for the Wings to win a cup again. Not sure why this business side keeps popping up so often. It's not relevant.

Holland is absolutely right that the question of whether to blow the team up and go scorched earth is a question for when we miss the playoffs 5 years in a row. Not when we miss it once. Babcock & Co. came in when Toronto had been out of the playoffs for pretty much a decade, outside of one fluke appearance in a shortened season which ended with one of the most embarrassing collapses in hockey history.

Why? Why is he right about that? Why does it take 5 years of sucking? Yes, Toronto sucked for a long time before they did what they did. That doesn't mean everyone has to wait a long time. And do you not think their management and fans would have preferred this if they knew how badly their previous approach would turn out?

Why do we have to suck for 5+ years before we tank hard? Doesn't that just prolong the sucking? We need to suck for 5 years, then tank harder for another 3-5 years? It's not like we've got kids in the pipeline who might be a savior for this team. We know the trajectory of this team is down down down. Why wait 5 years just to see the inevitable happen? Why not just cut the pain short, rip the bandaid off?

 

[jkutswings]

No, it's when they [fans] stop grabbing their money and vote with their wallets. Ilitches aren't billionaires because they're idiots when it comes to money. Last I checked, hockey isn't just a game; it's a business. Effective and successful people/organizations know when to hold and know when to fold. Red Wings (from business standpoint) apparently aren't ready to fold.

Another good point from that article:

The notion of tearing things down completely and being bad for a few years and rebuilding into a powerhouse sounds really sexy to a lot of fans and fantasy hockey players, but Holland has a really good point here. Think about it. If the recipe for building a Stanley Cup contender were simply a matter of being bad for an extended period of time and accumulating high draft picks, why are the Arizona Coyotes still one of the worst teams in the NHL? Why did it take the Columbus Blue Jackets 15 years to build a contending team? Why are the Winnipeg Jets and Carolina Hurricanes still perennially missing the playoffs? The Washington Capitals have Alex Ovechkin, but haven’t been out of the first round of the playoffs.

And there are teams like the Rangers that have gone the opposite route, and tried to free agency their way to a championship, but but they're riding a 13 year drought. Does that mean you shouldn't spend to the cap, and add players in free agency?

I don't know why we keep running in circles on this one. Just because you CAN sometimes find good players outside the top end of the draft, doesn't mean you should take the approach that has even lower odds of success.

 

[jkutswings]

Depends. If the team has a set of standards that easily 26 of 30(1) other NHL teams would never have, then sure. Fire him.

If the team has a set of standards that a heavy majority of NHL teams have, then no. Keep him.

How exactly do you draw the conclusion that 26/30 teams think it's acceptable to:
* Fall out of contention
* Fall out of the playoffs
* Lack the talent to get near contention within the next few years
* Repeat missing the playoffs
* Continue to steer the ship into the iceberg

Will most teams be true contenders in a given year? No.
Will most teams know they don't have the horses, know they're spinning their wheels, and refuse to shift gears for years at a time? No.

Each franchise has its own limitations and priorities, but I'm not familiar with anywhere near 26 that openly abandon the chase for the Cup, in favor of cherishing a participation trophy.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Vehemently disagree. If Detroit misses the playoffs twice in a row, and Holland still refuses to dive into a rebuild approaching year two of the new arena, he should be fired...if only for being delusional.

Okay, so even if we were to potentially draft a future superstar in this draft and have future stars in some of Hronek/Cholo/AA/Mantha/Larkin/etc you think we should blow it up if we miss next year? Just because we don't know for 100% that they'll be stars?
Going scorched earth should be a last resort, not something you do willingly. You have to give some time for young players to develop. If we miss a few years we're going to get some high picks, maybe not top 3 but still good prospects. But you have to be patient in a rebuild. Getting a Crosby/McDavid/Matthews doesn't happen for most teams. You can't be chasing those prospects if you don't absolutely have to. Most prospects don't turn a team around right away, it's a process and takes time. 5 years out of the playoffs wouldn't be great but that's about how long it's gonna take to truly know what we have in our current batch of youth/prospects as well as start seeing some results from draft picks we make this and the next year or two, years in which we'll likely have extra picks and a top 10-15 position.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

April fools. The red wings are actually president trophy winners and there's no need for this thread

And 5 years should be the minimum for a rebuild. As the early ones (have to be real lucky) only take 3 sometimes 4 anyway

 

[Reddwit]

I've never understood the thinking that rebuilds only end once a team wins a Cup or comes close. That's 20/20 hindsight hogwash. A team is done rebuilding once there is legitimate hope that that team can win the Cup. San Jose post-Thornton trade, St. Louis with Backes, Washington with Ovi, Vancouver a decade ago, Calgary with prime Iginla, Lightning with Stamkos (yes, even now), Philly with Lindros, St. Louis with Pronger, Ottawa with Alfie, Buffalo with Briere...

All of those teams, from players to fans, believed they could win it all multiple years in a row. And you could make a legitimate argument that all of them could have with the requisite luck that it takes to win Cups on their side. That is when a rebuild is complete. Tweaks are not rebuilds. Reasonable expectations of multiple playoff series won are not rebuilds. Legitimate hope for elite success is. That doesn't take a decade to uncover. In fact, if it does, it's surely because you've botched the process and set yourself back somewhere along the line.

 

[Bench]

How exactly do you draw the conclusion that 26/30 teams think it's acceptable to:
* Fall out of contention
* Fall out of the playoffs
* Lack the talent to get near contention within the next few years
* Repeat missing the playoffs
* Continue to steer the ship into the iceberg

Don't forget spend the most money while doing so.

 

[jkutswings]

Okay, so even if we were to potentially draft a future superstar in this draft and have future stars in some of Hronek/Cholo/AA/Mantha/Larkin/etc you think we should blow it up if we miss next year? Just because we don't know for 100% that they'll be stars?
Going scorched earth should be a last resort, not something you do willingly. You have to give some time for young players to develop. If we miss a few years we're going to get some high picks, maybe not top 3 but still good prospects. But you have to be patient in a rebuild. Getting a Crosby/McDavid/Matthews doesn't happen for most teams. You can't be chasing those prospects if you don't absolutely have to. Most prospects don't turn a team around right away, it's a process and takes time. 5 years out of the playoffs wouldn't be great but that's about how long it's gonna take to truly know what we have in our current batch of youth/prospects as well as start seeing some results from draft picks we make this and the next year or two, years in which we'll likely have extra picks and a top 10-15 position.

I think we're misunderstanding each other.

I'm not saying Holland should be fired if he doesn't go scorched earth. I'm saying he should be fired if he keeps trying to use mediocre vets to patch the leaky tire, rather than playing the kids and fixing the salary cap issues to win long-term.

This year should see tons of Mantha and Larkin, hopefully with a bad contract going to Vegas, and maybe even a decent trade thrown in to land an ok defenseman. But if it's yet another max cap on depth veteran forwards with no ceiling kinda year - with all indications that the following year will be more of the same - then pull the plug.

 

[obey86]

I think we're misunderstanding each other.

I'm not saying Holland should be fired if he doesn't go scorched earth. I'm saying he should be fired if he keeps trying to use mediocre vets to patch the leaky tire, rather than playing the kids and fixing the salary cap issues to win long-term.

This year should see tons of Mantha and Larkin, hopefully with a bad contract going to Vegas, and maybe even a decent trade thrown in to land an ok defenseman. But if it's yet another max cap on depth veteran forwards with no ceiling kinda year - with all indications that the following year will be more of the same - then pull the plug.

Why does it matter if the Wings spend to the cap or not when they aren't going to be good regardless for at least a couple years. Who cares?

 

[obey86]

I've never understood the thinking that rebuilds only end once a team wins a Cup or comes close. That's 20/20 hindsight hogwash. A team is done rebuilding once there is legitimate hope that that team can win the Cup. San Jose post-Thornton trade, St. Louis with Backes, Washington with Ovi, Vancouver a decade ago, Calgary with prime Iginla, Lightning with Stamkos (yes, even now), Philly with Lindros, St. Louis with Pronger, Ottawa with Alfie, Buffalo with Briere...

All of those teams, from players to fans, believed they could win it all multiple years in a row. And you could make a legitimate argument that all of them could have with the requisite luck that it takes to win Cups on their side. That is when a rebuild is complete. Tweaks are not rebuilds. Reasonable expectations of multiple playoff series won are not rebuilds. Legitimate hope for elite success is. That doesn't take a decade to uncover. In fact, if it does, it's surely because you've botched the process and set yourself back somewhere along the line.

What is a "legitimate hope" though?

You can easily look back on a team like Washington and come to the conclusion they were actually more hype than substance and have never really had a legitimate hope to win the cup. Their playoff history shows that. In the past nine seasons, since they became a competitive team, they've never even made it past the 2nd round...not even once. If that's your definition of a "legitimate hope to win the cup," then the Wings of the past few seasons losing in the 1st and 2nd round weren't far off. Same story with teams like the Blues and Predators. They rarely/never come close to competing for the cup... 2 times past the 2nd round in the last ~30 years for St. Louis and 0 times past the 2nd round in franchise history for the Predators.

If that's truly your definition of results that show a team is competing for the cup, the Wings don't have far to climb.

You seem to be confusing "having a great/elite player or players" with "competing for the cup." They aren't one in the same.

 

[iDangleDangle]

You seem to be confusing "having a great/elite player or players" with "competing for the cup." They aren't one in the same.

Except, they pretty much are.

How many Conference finalists has there been in the last 10 years without any elite pieces?

 

[Syckle78]

What is a "legitimate hope" though?

You can easily look back on a team like Washington and come to the conclusion they were actually more hype than substance and have never really had a legitimate hope to win the cup. Their playoff history shows that. In the past nine seasons, since they became a competitive team, they've never even made it past the 2nd round...not even once. If that's your definition of a "legitimate hope to win the cup," then the Wings of the past few seasons losing in the 1st and 2nd round weren't far off. Same story with teams like the Blues and Predators. They rarely/never come close to competing for the cup... 2 times past the 2nd round in the last ~30 years for St. Louis and 0 times past the 2nd round in franchise history for the Predators.

If that's truly your definition of results that show a team is competing for the cup, the Wings don't have far to climb.

You seem to be confusing "having a great/elite player or players" with "competing for the cup." They aren't one in the same.

Right because there's no difference between limping your sorry ass to the playoffs year after year to feed another team 4 wins than being a great or very good team but getting upset or beaten by another great team. I guess there was really no difference between the wings in the 90s and the likes of the sharks because the wings didn't make it past the 2nd round until '95.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Not all teams with elite players contend but all contending teams have elite players. If you don't have elite players that only leaves one course of action. You don't win Cups with a bunch of mediocre players by lighting candles and hugging your Yzerman jersey at night.

 

[Dotter]

What do you personally think? What do you think the Wings management should do to be competitive for the cup ASAP? Let's not talk about the business side of things because we're just fans of the team and the sport. We're not going to get any money out of this venture. The only thing we get is joy from watching our team succeed.

Despite missing the playoffs, the 2016/17 was bearable and at times exciting. Ken Holland went out and signed some nice free agents that some here hated (Ott), but they were fun to watch. What's more, some of those FA returned us free draft picks. It was also exciting to see the kids come in and play well. This team is getting younger every year and, in result, will win less as the kids are still learning.

I liked shooting for the playoffs at the start of the season. I like Ott and Vanek and even Neilsen. I like the free draft picks from trading the FA after we are basically out of the playoffs.

It seems like every season there are 1 or 2 late round gems in the draft. Ken Holland has a better chance at scoring a late round gem with more late round picks he acquired for free. Rinse and repeat.

I am willing to watch hockey games if I know they are trying to win. If they are going full tank mode like other NHL teams that have done in the past (and still haven't won anything), I will opt out of watching hockey. Or even visiting message forums. I have no interest in watching purposely losing hockey. If Ken Holland tries to put together a product at the start of the season that could make the playoffs, I find that way more enjoyable than tanking. If we are going to miss, trade those assets and draft some (hopefully) late round studs.

Not all teams with elite players contend but all contending teams have elite players. If you don't have elite players that only leaves one course of action. You don't win Cups with a bunch of mediocre players by lighting candles and hugging your Yzerman jersey at night.

What do you consider elite?

 

[Syckle78]

There was nothing exciting about '16. And if you're using watching steve ott as an example of fun you've certainly run out of straws to grasp. Oh and mid round picks woohoo I can hardly stand the excitement.

 

[Dotter]

There was nothing exciting about '16. And if you're using watching steve ott as an example of fun you've certainly run out of straws to grasp. Oh and mid round picks woohoo I can hardly stand the excitement.

To each of their own. I don't hate Mantha, Athanasiou, or Jensen like others, I guess.
I had fun watching the kids grow. I also enjoyed watching Zetterberg, and witness his 900th career point. It's also fun seeing, for the first time in a long time, the DRWs have so many fighting majors.

Then again, I'm a hockey fan... not a Stanley Cup or bust/tank fan. The nu:NHL will surely weed out the fair weather fans.

 

[Syckle78]

To each of their own. I don't hate Mantha, Athanasiou, or Jensen like others, I guess.
I had fun watching the kids grow. I also enjoyed watching Zetterberg, and witness his 900th career point. It's also fun seeing, for the first time in a long time, the DRWs have so many fighting majors.

Then again, I'm a hockey fan... not a Stanley Cup or bust/tank fan. The nu:NHL will surely weed out the fair weather fans.

The hell? You talked **** about mantha and aa all season when everyone else was talking them up. You're unbelievable.

What was your latest gem of a hot take? Mantha is made of glass had a hangnail and gets an early vacation to the Bahamas. Your schtick of contrarianism is beyond tired at this point.

 

[Dotter]

The hell? You talked **** about mantha and aa all season when everyone else was talking them up. You're unbelievable.

I defended the coaches decision to bench AA and Mantha when they were floating and playing 10% of their capabilities. That falls under "watch the kids grow" category.

They are young hockey players/rookies. That's what you get. That's part of hockey. You should know this.

What was your latest gem of a hot take? Mantha is made of glass had a hangnail and gets an early vacation to the Bahamas. Your schtick of contrarianism is beyond tired at this point.

Hockey players can play with a broken finger. They do it all the time.

 

[Red Stanley]

The point was there. You just seem to have missed it. Can't say that's surprising.

You seem obsessed with the idea of "what have you accomplished?" Well what has Connor McDavid accomplished? Would you not want him either? He's not a winner. He's never won anything at the NHL level. Is Connor McDavid "not relevant" because he's never accomplished anything at the NHL level?

Seriously, answer this question. I mean, I'll understand if you don't. I get the feeling you realize how wrong you are but you're just too stubborn to admit it now and you're doubling down.

You're comparing individual players to a team. I was talking about TML and the Oilers as teams having accomplished nothing as of yet in order to be considered relevant. Neither has won a playoff series and one hasn't even locked up a spot, yet. They have fantastic young talent for sure. They're fun to watch and have a good chance of doing something worth talking about in the near future. I actually like the Oilers and hope they make a splash as soon as this year. You talk about it like it's guaranteed. Plenty of teams have done nothing exceptional with their exceptional talent.

 

[obey86]

Except, they pretty much are.

How many Conference finalists has there been in the last 10 years without any elite pieces?

Every great team has great players. Not every team with a great player or players is a great team. Obviously there's a huge difference.

Otherwise, teams with Claude Giroux, Ryan Suter, Shea Weber, Pietrangelo, Ovechkin, etc would have accomplished something worthwhile in the playoffs at least one time in their long careers. Ok, I guess the Blues did make the conference finals once but overall they are early flame outs and haven't been true Cup contenders when it comes to crunch time.

 

[Red Stanley]

To each of their own. I don't hate Mantha, Athanasiou, or Jensen like others, I guess.
I had fun watching the kids grow. I also enjoyed watching Zetterberg, and witness his 900th career point. It's also fun seeing, for the first time in a long time, the DRWs have so many fighting majors.

Then again, I'm a hockey fan... not a Stanley Cup or bust/tank fan. The nu:NHL will surely weed out the fair weather fans.

Well said.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Well said.

But that doesn't really defray the argument. After all, a "hockey fan" would still have more fun watching better, more talented lineups. Most fans would rather watch Connor McDavid than some average/below average league player like Riley Sheahan. And I think most Edmonton fans would say the entertainment margin between those kinds of players was worth the wait, even if they don't win anything. So, really, even the "hockey fan" should want to rebuild enough to get some electrifying talent, if possible.

Unless you're gonna argue that being a "hockey fan" is separate from liking exciting, high-talent players.

 

[Red Stanley]

But that doesn't really defray the argument. After all, a "hockey fan" would still have more fun watching better, more talented lineups. Most fans would rather watch Connor McDavid than some average/below average league player like Riley Sheahan. And I think most Edmonton fans would say the entertainment margin between those kinds of players was worth the wait, even if they don't win anything. So, really, even the "hockey fan" should want to rebuild enough to get some electrifying talent, if possible.

Unless you're gonna argue that being a "hockey fan" is separate from liking exciting, high-talent players.

The argument was enjoying something even when it's not so great, vs not enjoying it at all. Nobody is making anybody watch Sheahan instead of McDavid.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

The argument was enjoying something even when it's not so great, vs not enjoying it at all. Nobody is making anybody watch Sheahan instead of McDavid.

Right, but you would still enjoy it MORE with McDavid than Sheahan. So if we have the opportunity to increase your enjoyment level by the difference between the two, and we decide the difference is large enough for the cost, we should probably do what we can to land McDavid instead of being content with Sheahan. That's the overall point, and it applies to the hockey fan as well. It applies to anyone as long as McDavid hockey is preferable to Sheahan hockey.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I defended the coaches decision to bench AA and Mantha when they were floating and playing 10% of their capabilities. That falls under "watch the kids grow" category.

They are young hockey players/rookies. That's what you get. That's part of hockey. You should know this.



Hockey players can play with a broken finger. They do it all the time.

In the playoffs they do. As a rookie playing in the final 5 meaningless games of a non-playoff team, not so much.

I can't imagine why any GM in their right mind would want a promising rookie risking further damage by playing meaningless games with a broken finger.