DD isn't a #1 dman either, so i don't know why you felt the need to make the comparison.
Where you are hung up is in your confusing "#1 dman" (something I didn't say) with "top pairing dman" (what I actually said).
You are right, lots of teams do pair their best dman with their third or fourth best defenseman instead of their second best to spread the wealth and improve depth along the blue line.
That is true, but not what I said. Even most teams #2 is not someone to consider an 'all around defenseman'. To make the example as perilously clear as I can, Detroit's second best defenseman for the vast majority of their runs were: Konstantinov, Murphy, Chelios, Rafalski. Do those guys meet the category you expressed as being "Top pairing defenseman are great on both sides of the ice"?
Konstantinov was "great" offensively? No. Murphy was "great" defensively? No. Chelios was "great" offensively? No. Rafalski was "great" defensively? No.
It's not a question of top pairing guys being Anders Erikkson circa 1998 or Jonathan Ericsson circa 2013, although that's certainly something teams do, it's that true lead dmen are steps beyond even qualified #2's.
If Kronwall only put up 20 points a season, but played amazing shut down defense, he would not be a top pairing defenseman. You can't play him 24-25 minutes a night with that kind of abysmal production.
Like I said, you're confusing #1 dman with top pairing dman. Tons of team play their #2's in roles very similar to the one you describe. Granted, not 24-25 minutes, but there are typically not a lot of even #1 dmen who get that kind of usage. 21-23+? All the time.
The Wings are incapable of drafting top pairing defenseman. The last time they drafted anyone with the talent to be the back bone of their defense was almost 16 years ago, and i don't think that drought is going to end anytime soon.
Perhaps, but 1) I'm not sure many people would describe your general outlook on anything related to the Wings as 'rosy' and 2), it's not like there are many of the guys who exceed your expectation for that role in the NHL anyway.
League wide we're talking about 10-15 guys tops who are that, drafted over a period of a decade by 30 teams. There are a couple teams who have done exceptionally well getting them, 5-8 who've gotten 1 over that time frame, and 15+ who haven't done any better in that specific regard than Detroit.
Where a lot of those other teams pass the Wings is in their improved accuracy getting better depth dmen. Detroit's spent a lot of 2's on the blue line and come up with very little.
The fact that you mentioned players that were drafted when the Soviet Union was still around as proof that the system works doesn't really convince me that the Wings know how to draft high quality defenseman.
I'm confused that you thought such was my aim.
Hooray the playoff streak is still kicking. In 25 years i will reflect on it very fondly, but today, it means i will get to watch the Wings lose in the first round again for the third straight year.
It's always a matter of perspective and emphasis. The Wings view that streak much more fondly than you (or I, to be honest) do. I'd imagine there are lots of other fanbases who would gladly trade their teams history the past quarter century for Detroit's, while fans of Detroit who've already gotten to experience that kind of endless success are blase about it's continuance.
Yeah instead of dolling out fairly ruinous contracts to aging vets, the Wings can hand them out to players like Justin Abdelkader, Stephen Weiss, Jonathan Ericsson and Jimmy Howard. Not a single one of those contracts are below market value.
I'm confused why you think they should have been?
What Detroit's depth at forward allowed is for them to avoid having to add a couple more of those deals at forward. Had Detroit Mrazek a couple years earlier there's less pressure on them to commit so strongly to Howard. Had Detroit some blueline talent in the pipeline there's less pressure to spent to market on Ericsson or (more detrimental IMO) to move a 1 for Quincey and then pay him 4.5ish for 4 years.
Those are the moving-part mechanics of the cap construct. For example, if Detroit didn't have Tatar or Nyquist how more desperate do you think they'd be to pay guys like Fil and Hudler to stick around, players who are inferior to Tatar and Nyquist?
Although i wouldn't have an issue with Howard's contract if i thought Holland would actually trade him at the end of this season. Of course that won't happen. We wouldn't want to degrade the Wings "organizational depth."
I'm curious. At the time of the signing where were you on the deal? Given that there was no depth in the system behind him and he was coming off some fairly good years, were you a voice in the wilderness castigating the deal?
And then the Wings can use their draft picks to acquire washed up vets at the TDL.
Unless they didn't, which mean you'd hammer them for not trying to improve the team. As you say...