Update: Conflicting info on Holland. (He still might return.)

[Unfriendly Ghost]

I personally think alot of our problems with team evaluation is no one here has ever been a fan of a regular team. We are basically the Yankees complaining about how "horrible" our "making the playoffs"
was.

Very little perspective.

Yes many of the points are true in regards to critisisms around here... but.
the attitude peeople are arguing these details with just smacks of being spoiled.

This is a little bit of a digression.

I agree that the Wings fanbase has some issues stemming from the Wings' crazy record the last 20 years. But I don't think all or even the majority of the behavior you see comes from it. And I say that because tons of other teams now feel the same way we do. We're actually followers in this trend, with Toronto and Buffalo fans having had all these discussions before. Really, I think there's a league-wide sentiment that if you don't have elite talent, you don't have a chance, and that's fueling all this talk about rebuilding. Fans all around the league want the next Matthews or Dahlin. And it doesn't hurt that everybody loves to watch skilled hockey, and you tend to find the most skilled guys at the top of the draft.

I really think we're seeing the death of the "win games, grind it out, I don't care how" mentality. There's too much competition for attention span between other sports and video games and internet memes and Netflix and whatever. Fans don't have to watch your team if you aren't putting an entertaining product on the ice, and maybe they won't. And we've seen a number of those comments on this very forum. I imagine an awful lot of us watched fewer games this year than usual, and not just because they were losing, but also because they were boring.

Sports games are just entertainment products now, and sports fans have similar concerns to TV or movie viewers: if your product isn't going to hold my attention, you don't have my money. If you want my money, play an entertaining style and draft more entertaining players.

 

[BinCookin]

This is a little bit of a digression.

I agree that the Wings fanbase has some issues stemming from the Wings' crazy record the last 20 years. But I don't think all or even the majority of the behavior you see comes from it. And I say that because tons of other teams now feel the same way we do. We're actually followers in this trend, with Toronto and Buffalo fans having had all these discussions before. Really, I think there's a league-wide sentiment that if you don't have elite talent, you don't have a chance, and that's fueling all this talk about rebuilding. Fans all around the league want the next Matthews or Dahlin. And it doesn't hurt that everybody loves to watch skilled hockey, and you tend to find the most skilled guys at the top of the draft.

I really think we're seeing the death of the "win games, grind it out, I don't care how" mentality. There's too much competition for attention span between other sports and video games and internet memes and Netflix and whatever. Fans don't have to watch your team if you aren't putting an entertaining product on the ice, and maybe they won't. And we've seen a number of those comments on this very forum. I imagine an awful lot of us watched fewer games this year than usual, and not just because they were losing, but also because they were boring.

Sports games are just entertainment products now, and sports fans have similar concerns to TV or movie viewers: if your product isn't going to hold my attention, you don't have my money. If you want my money, play an entertaining style and draft more entertaining players.

I agree with all that. Just not exactly what i was saying.

I agree with the last 18 months Detroit has taken. they are selling assets and they are rebuilding. We can argue exactly who else we should be selling, but overall we are pro tank. Its clear in the actions of the franchise.

the spoiled part i was referring to in regards to the history analysis of our team. 2015/2016 i think is clear grounds for solid criticism. Maybe we should have purposely blown our roster up like NYR did this year. But do realize that is excedingly rare.

People forget toronto was horrible for 10 years. And Kadri / Reilly are part of that rebuild.

2010-2014 We made the playoffs, and with not horrible odds. But the entire hyperbole of how bad this time was for us is a little lame to listen to.

Mostly because i know people are lying.. ive been posting here for a long time. And there has always been anger at something (such is the internet). But our re-analysis of history is approaching Breitbart style fake news.

People will quote how pathetic we are to NSH or we were the 5th seed that year... and IGNORE completely the fact our division was BY FAR the best in the league... CHI/NSH/DEt/StL were 4 of the top 7 teams in the league that year.

Pretending that getting knocked out in the first round was an "epic failure" was more a "its a shame these two teams are meeting in round 1 vs round 2".

But if you state information in the right order. And ignore facts... than ya it sounds bad. You can make anything sound bad.

Im tired of analyzing the past.... why should I have to tell poster's here (which are arguably the top 1% of hockey knowledge btw) how facts about our own team work?

I get it... Holland signed some (many) horrible deals.
He could have done a few things differently.
the vitriol going back 5-6 years ago is not true.
I would enjoy some realism in analyzing what is OBVIOUS by the numbers for when we were a playoff team with legit chances like any other top 8 team or top 16 team etc.

I am pro tank
pro elite talent
we have a ton of problems.
I find discussions about what to do this summer or at this draft MUCH MORE valuable than beating Zombie horses to death.

 

[kliq]

Well said @BinCookin @Fire Ken Holland. I pretty much agree with everything both of you have said.

I think what has happened is everyone has "figured out" the system in place and now you have a world where people want their teams to be contenders for a cup (ie Pit), god awful (ie. Ari), or on the cusp of being contenders (ie. Tor) and because of this anything in between is going to get scrutinized.

With that being said, I get it, I get why they are scrutinized. The NHL has come up with a system where the worse you are, the better the reward. I hate being a fan right now, its not fun to watch a team I have watched for almost 30 years and hope they lose, that shouldn't be a thing, but due to the system it is.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The last two years, St. Louis has traded Stastny and Shattenkirk at the deadline, netting
Two first round picks (one of whom is promising Klim Kostin).
Zach Sanford - Decent forward prospect
Erik Foley - Who looks like a Tyler Bertuzzi type.
Two later round picks

How much further along would the Red Wings rebuild be if Holland started doing this in 2015?

How many cups have the Blues core players won? How many SCFs have they reached? WCFs?

Constant chokers try to re-tool faster than constant contender, news at 11.

PS. Blues were also rumored to be going hard after Hoffman, something that could happen at the draft. Not sure what they’re doing is a legit rebuild as much as re-tooling on the fly around Tarasenko/Pietro.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Well said @BinCookin @Fire Ken Holland. I pretty much agree with everything both of you have said.

I think what has happened is everyone has "figured out" the system in place and now you have a world where people want their teams to be contenders for a cup (ie Pit), god awful (ie. Ari), or on the cusp of being contenders (ie. Tor) and because of this anything in between is going to get scrutinized.

This is a good point, and I think it speaks to a certain old-fashioned quality we find in the NHL. For the longest time, there were a lot of different ways to run a hockey team, and nobody really knew which was best. Or if they had an opinion on which was best, it was because of some real life track record. And most of the guys in charge of the sport right now still have this attitude.

But in the last 10 years or so, we're seeing a generation of STEM-oriented college kids and professionals who see systems like the NHL's as constrained optimization problems to be solved. There's a real focus on figuring out which approach works best. And it just feels like the management for basically every team in the league is lagging behind on that. There's still this "nobody knows for sure" attitude where your hunch is good enough. And that's the kind of thing I take away from Ken Holland talking about team building philosophy. This is his hunch.

I take that to be a generational disconnect, because posters here are likely in that younger generation where everything is a math problem to be solved. But team management, not so much. Which sort of explains why posters here wouldn't be able to pitch our rebuild strategy to Ken Holland even if we had the chance. And I'm sure Holland has heard all of these ideas before, anyway. Supposedly Draper has similar views to posters here.

 

[Shaman464]

It's funny you presume to have watched more than I then go on about how rules now would take away from his production. Rules were more stringent then when a single toe in the crease would wipe out goals and reviews were absolutely killing the excitement of the game. But hey you watched all through that period more than me. Amirite?

Except now his famous move of casual contact with the goalie AND reviews for interference would be much more deleterious. They are be no means more stringent, because we can all think of examples where it was missed or unenforced especially after the first lockout. Also it was changed to a much looser definition in 2006-07 both the official and unofficial loosening coinciding with Holmstrom's drastic change in scoring pace.

The toe in the blue paint violation calls hit their zenith in the late 90s early 2000s and was the reason why Hull's goal in 1999 was so contentious, well before Holmstrom became what he is remembered for, which was in mid to late 2000's.

 

[jkutswings]

I mean, they're not winning because they traded Stasny. They did not improve their team by getting rid of Paul Stastny.

Oh no. I just meant that they're playing as good or better hockey now, versus before the deadline, and now they have additional assets to show for it.

Maybe the roster shakeup got players to focus or come together better, which isn't a knock on Stastny, just a wake up for the other guys on the team.

 

[Claypool]

Oh no. I just meant that they're playing as good or better hockey now, versus before the deadline, and now they have additional assets to show for it.

Maybe the roster shakeup got players to focus or come together better, which isn't a knock on Stastny, just a wake up for the other guys on the team.

The Blues had Stanley Cup aspirations at the start of this season. Their entire management group is a colussal failure. No clue why anyone is brining that team up as an example to properly run an organization.

 

[FMichael]

The Hossa v Franzen debate has been beat into the ground so hard that it has looped around a couple times. The horse was beat to death, beat so hard that it came back to life again and then clubbed back to death.

 

[Redder Winger]

This is a good point, and I think it speaks to a certain old-fashioned quality we find in the NHL. For the longest time, there were a lot of different ways to run a hockey team, and nobody really knew which was best. Or if they had an opinion on which was best, it was because of some real life track record. And most of the guys in charge of the sport right now still have this attitude.

But in the last 10 years or so, we're seeing a generation of STEM-oriented college kids and professionals who see systems like the NHL's as constrained optimization problems to be solved. There's a real focus on figuring out which approach works best. And it just feels like the management for basically every team in the league is lagging behind on that. There's still this "nobody knows for sure" attitude where your hunch is good enough. And that's the kind of thing I take away from Ken Holland talking about team building philosophy. This is his hunch.

I take that to be a generational disconnect, because posters here are likely in that younger generation where everything is a math problem to be solved. But team management, not so much. Which sort of explains why posters here wouldn't be able to pitch our rebuild strategy to Ken Holland even if we had the chance. And I'm sure Holland has heard all of these ideas before, anyway. Supposedly Draper has similar views to posters here.

Ken Holland's own immediate post-cap roster work is an example of understanding the constructs of the cap and building your team the right way.
He failed to stick to those principles.
Depth dime-a-dozen guys like Cleary and Samuelsson and Lilja were essentail pieces at under $1M/year each.
But even with an expanding salary cap, the onus was on Holland to continue to find cheap depth, whether it was rookies or bargain-basement veterans cut loose by other teams and looking for a shot at redemption.

Instead, he fell into the loyalty traps and started giving core-commitment deals to guys who have no business in any team's core.

 

[Redder Winger]

The Blues had Stanley Cup aspirations at the start of this season. Their entire management group is a colussal failure. No clue why anyone is brining that team up as an example to properly run an organization.

Because they recognized their weakness. They sold off a departing asset instead of pretending they were a contender - like many teams might try to do.

 

[Claypool]

Because they recognized their weakness. They sold off a departing asset instead of pretending they were a contender - like many teams might try to do.

Right, they don't have a history of winning like Detroit does. It's dumb to even compare the teams.

 

[FMichael]

Because they recognized their weakness. They sold off a departing asset instead of pretending they were a contender - like many teams might try to do.

The Blues are said to be 1 of several teams that'll push hard for Tavares.

 

[Henkka]

Because they recognized their weakness. They sold off a departing asset instead of pretending they were a contender - like many teams might try to do.

They have drafted a new center core, and traded for Schenn, so they can let the oldest walk. Fabbri is injured at this season, but he'll take the slot in the future.

Brayden Schenn
Robby Fabbri
Tage Thomspon/Patrik Berglund
Sobotka/Brodziak

They didn't need Stastny anymore.

Same with Shattenkirk. When you have drafted very well on RhD department, first Pietrangelo and then Parayko, you don't need Shattenkirk. It was really a slight problem, because any of them couldn't naturally play on the left side and there wasn't enough ice-time to give for all. So they traded from a strength.

It was also known for years before, than Shattenkirk will want to be a New York Ranger. Everybody on hockey World knew this. They traded him, before he would have left for free. Got some assets.

 

[Winger98]

The Blues are said to be 1 of several teams that'll push hard for Tavares.

Tarasenko is 26. Pietrangelo is 28. Parayko is 24. If you could add Tavares to that group why wouldn't you?

 

[jkutswings]

Right, they don't have a history of winning like Detroit does. It's dumb to even compare the teams.

In the last five years, the Blues have 22 playoff wins to the Wings' 12. And a Conference Finals appearance. While that doesn't make them a model franchise, it certainly makes them more relevant of late than this franchise.

Any reference to Detroit's history of winning is squarely in the rearview mirror, and becomes less pertinent with each passing season. I mean, we could model everybody after Montreal, since they have more championships than anybody else, but I'd rather pattern myself after the teams that are getting it done in the here and now.

 

[Claypool]

In the last five years, the Blues have 22 playoff wins to the Wings' 12. And a Conference Finals appearance. While that doesn't make them a model franchise, it certainly makes them more relevant of late than this franchise.

Any reference to Detroit's history of winning is squarely in the rearview mirror, and becomes less pertinent with each passing season.

The Blues have never been relevant. Even Blues fans will admit that. You're talking out of your ass (as usual). I love it, though. Please, keep it going.

 

[Henkka]

Also, don't know what was going with Stastny on the Blues locker room. Blues were on a 7-game losing streak at the deadline. Since the trade to Jets, they have won 9 games of 14 and are pushing again for the playoffs. Their playoff hopes did look like a pipe dream during that losing streak.

Maybe they had to clean some air or something. Because it obviously helped.

 

[jkutswings]

The Blues have never been relevant. Even Blues fans will admit that. You're talking out of your ass (as usual). I love it, though. Please, keep it going.

Attacking me with insults instead of attacking the data with data. Not very convincing.

I never claimed the Blues were anything special. But if you're going to thumb your nose at a franchise, when Detroit has been measurably even worse for several years now, it rings a bit hollow.

Wings fans have no business throwing any sort of stones from this glass house.

 

[kliq]

In the last five years, the Blues have 22 playoff wins to the Wings' 12. And a Conference Finals appearance. While that doesn't make them a model franchise, it certainly makes them more relevant of late than this franchise.

Any reference to Detroit's history of winning is squarely in the rearview mirror, and becomes less pertinent with each passing season. I mean, we could model everybody after Montreal, since they have more championships than anybody else, but I'd rather pattern myself after the teams that are getting it done in the here and now.

Why is that even relevant? Its not like the Wings are always the bar. There is no question that the Wings have struggled since Lidstrom's retirement, but its not as if anyone who has played better then us is therefore relevant. In the grand scheme of things, since the lockout the Blues have won 4 out of 11 playoff series despite being favorites many times. They are hardly the team to aspire to be. But sure, if you want to say they have been better then us over the past 6 years, go for it.

 

[kliq]

Attacking me with insults instead of attacking the data with data. Not very convincing.

I never claimed the Blues were anything special. But if you're going to thumb your nose at a franchise, when Detroit has been measurably even worse for several years now, it rings a bit hollow.

Wings fans have no business throwing any sort of stones from this glass house.

So you are saying that since the Wings have not played well since 2012, all Wings fans are not allowed to state a single thing about any other NHL franchise? Good luck with that one.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Attacking me with insults instead of attacking the data with data. Not very convincing.

I never claimed the Blues were anything special. But if you're going to thumb your nose at a franchise, when Detroit has been measurably even worse for several years now, it rings a bit hollow.

Wings fans have no business throwing any sort of stones from this glass house.

The comparison though is trading Filppula in his walk year. So rewind your count on the Wings playoff games for a like for like comparison over the five years leading up to that. Also factor in that he was a part of a core that did win a cup, something that cannot be applied to St. Louis. Now your data doesn't look very good because it was the wrong selection of data to begin with...

 

[jkutswings]

The comparison though is trading Filppula in his walk year. So rewind your count on the Wings playoff games for a like for like comparison over the five years leading up to that. Also factor in that he was a part of a core that did win a cup, something that cannot be applied to St. Louis. Now your data doesn't look very good because it was the wrong selection of data to begin with...

The Blues originally came up for one reason: an example of a team that sold at the deadline, despite being in the playoff mix, and having that decision pay at least short term dividends. Claypool then opened the can of nonsense that led to all these other tangents, despite my repeated statements that I was NOT saying people should specifically emulate St Louis.

So let's walk this back to selling Filppula then. I stand by my statement that Detroit's days of championship contention were over, and they should have sold an expiring contract (that they knew was guaranteed to leave). Others are free to disagree, and life goes on.

 

[Redder Winger]

Or Abdelkader.
Or Helm.
Or Ericsson.
Or Hudler.

 

[jkutswings]

So you are saying that since the Wings have not played well since 2012, all Wings fans are not allowed to state a single thing about any other NHL franchise? Good luck with that one.

Saying a given team is lousy this year is very different than saying a franchise has never been relevant in its 51 year history.