Well, now that the rebuild is over...

[Ezekial]

I hear this rebutle a lot, and its just my oppinon of course. But I always hear well they only really had 1 or 2 top draft picks. Well that's because it takes one or two top draft picks. Look at all the stanley cup winning teams. Any team that has not built through those 1 or 2 top draft picks who where critical keys to their cup window. When ever anyone brings up Boston there were a lot of great signings like a Vezena caliber free agent pick up from Europe and Boston did have a second overall pick in the lineup although young still stole a game for them, they also had a pretty once in a lifetime freak of nature repeat norris winning defensman near his prime. Take a look at Boston and tell me exactly which of Holland's moves are mirroring that trajectory?

I am not saying 2 top 3 picks are the end all be all to winning a cup. Drafting number 2 and then number 1 does not garuntee a cup in 10 years. What I am saying is that having those picks is a critical part of building a champion along with depth, trading, cap management and free agents. All of which Holland has been bad to awful at since the last cup.

Hollands management is not good enough to get back to championship cliber and its also not bad enough to get the picks necessary to stock the team with elite talent.

I'm just going to go ahead and admit I was being shortsighted in my response to your initial post. I was just thinking about how few top picks they have actually had recently and kinda jumped the gun.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I hear this rebutle a lot, and its just my oppinon of course. But I always hear well they only really had 1 or 2 top draft picks. Well that's because it takes one or two top draft picks. Look at all the stanley cup winning teams. Any team that has not built through those 1 or 2 top draft picks who where critical keys to their cup window. When ever anyone brings up Boston there were a lot of great signings like a Vezena caliber free agent pick up from Europe and Boston did have a second overall pick in the lineup although young still stole a game for them, they also had a pretty once in a lifetime freak of nature repeat norris winning defensman near his prime. Take a look at Boston and tell me exactly which of Holland's moves are mirroring that trajectory?

I am not saying 2 top 3 picks are the end all be all to winning a cup. Drafting number 2 and then number 1 does not garuntee a cup in 10 years. What I am saying is that having those picks is a critical part of building a champion along with depth, trading, cap management and free agents. All of which Holland has been bad to awful at since the last cup.

Hollands management is not good enough to get back to championship cliber and its also not bad enough to get the picks necessary to stock the team with elite talent.

The pipeline is starting to look pretty good as the last couple years have been massive in terms of replenishing young talent. This is a bottom three team so you are looking probably at worst drafting 6 but I think we have a top 5 pick. The bottom out looks pretty real. I know people will say but he didn't mean to do this. From what I understand this reality has been real with Holland since Datsyuk left and his actions speak to that despite some of the hysterical accusations thrown at him around here. We will see, but hey if we win the Hughes sweepstakes this year or frankly come out of the draft with Cozens or Dach we should be almost completely done up front. Maybe a D-man steps into that conversation. But this isn't 12 months ago, I am pretty happy with what I see in the build thus far and I expect this to be another year of lots of draft picks and likely a top 5 pick which is what we need at this point.

The next two years are hopefully your last two top 10 draft pick season. They might be the top 5 selection you are clamoring for. They also are hopefully the difference makers that slot these guys down one role. I think that would make all the difference on this team.

 

[Henkka]

I know people will say but he didn't mean to do this. From what I understand this reality has been real with Holland since Datsyuk left and his actions speak to that despite some of the hysterical accusations thrown at him around here.

Exactly this. Actions tell more than GM-business-talk.

 

[MMC]

Do Wings fans still think Blashill is a bad coach?

 

[InjuredChoker]

Do Wings fans still think Blashill is a bad coach?

bad is probably a bit harsh but he's medicore at best and hasn't really shown significant improvement.. however, the lack of talent especially at D is making his job pretty hard.

 

[lomekian]

The journey has been pretty simple.

KH inherited a great team but had to sell picks I the hope of replacing Vladdie and keeping an aging team as contenders, peaking in 02. The emergence of D & Z meant he could completely rebuild and have 08. We were contenders til Lids & Rafalski went, then it became about rebuilding on the fly, where the streak was prioritised, as was squeezing every last drop out of D & Z. Mistakes were made in and just before this period re signings/drafting etc when the margin for error was smaller. They tried to keep it going after Dats left, but the earlier mistakes meant they couldn't buck the system.

As soon it became clear that we weren't a playoff team anymore, a staggered rebuild has begun. It's not been tanking, but it has been pursuing extra picks, slowly shipping those out with any value who aren't going to add to our future. Unless the kids improve massively, we'll see the same pattern for the next two years. Ultimately it will largely come down to whether Zadina and our next two draft years become elite or borderline elite. The wings under Holland have a decent record of drafting middle six forwards and middle pairing D, so it's all about if we can finally grab the odd home run.

Signs so far point to better high round drafting once Nill etc left, so there is cause for optimism, but the very fact KH has been calling it a rebuild for the last 6+ months means everyone knows what the program is for the next 2-3 years at least.

The last few drafts have made it much easier to buy into a rebuild as we have done good building blocks that just need a bit more star quality.

 

[Henkka]

bad is probably a bit harsh but he's medicore at best and hasn't really shown significant improvement.. however, the lack of talent especially at D is making his job pretty hard.

I think he is a good coach. He got us overperform on last year. On many ranks were supposed to be 3rd worst team and we were a lot higher when going towards the trade deadline. We weren't as bad at all.

Then, after the Tatar-trade, the team somewhat mentally gave up because of that sell-signal and we started the long losing streak. That dropped us on the standings, not Blashill's abilities.

I haven't seen anything wrong on Blashill's work in Team USA, when he has decent material. And we didn't miss a beat on the first season after Babcock left, when we did have Datsyuk.

Pavel's departure and Kronwall's injuries are the biggest factors to our team regression in last 2 seasons, by far. We have lost 2 of our TOP3 important players, and now Zetterberg joins the list.

Now we have lost them all, and maybe only Larkin is on the level to replace one of them.

But I understand people need a scapegoat, when people won't understand the bigger picture. Either coach or GM. Can't be anything else.

 

[kliq]

The journey has been pretty simple.

KH inherited a great team but had to sell picks I the hope of replacing Vladdie and keeping an aging team as contenders, peaking in 02. The emergence of D & Z meant he could completely rebuild and have 08. We were contenders til Lids & Rafalski went, then it became about rebuilding on the fly, where the streak was prioritised, as was squeezing every last drop out of D & Z. Mistakes were made in and just before this period re signings/drafting etc when the margin for error was smaller. They tried to keep it going after Dats left, but the earlier mistakes meant they couldn't buck the system.

As soon it became clear that we weren't a playoff team anymore, a staggered rebuild has begun. It's not been tanking, but it has been pursuing extra picks, slowly shipping those out with any value who aren't going to add to our future. Unless the kids improve massively, we'll see the same pattern for the next two years. Ultimately it will largely come down to whether Zadina and our next two draft years become elite or borderline elite. The wings under Holland have a decent record of drafting middle six forwards and middle pairing D, so it's all about if we can finally grab the odd home run.

Signs so far point to better high round drafting once Nill etc left, so there is cause for optimism, but the very fact KH has been calling it a rebuild for the last 6+ months means everyone knows what the program is for the next 2-3 years at least.

The last few drafts have made it much easier to buy into a rebuild as we have done good building blocks that just need a bit more star quality.

Just to make sure I understand correctly. Are you saying that right now they are doing a "staggered rebuild" while between 2002 and 2008 they did a "complete rebuild"?

I ask because between 2002 and 2008 IMO is the definition of "rebuild on the fly".

 

[lomekian]

Just to make sure I understand correctly. Are you saying that right now they are doing a "staggered rebuild" while between 2002 and 2008 they did a "complete rebuild"?

I ask because between 2002 and 2008 IMO is the definition of "rebuild on the fly".

If you look at the 02 team vs the 08 team, 2/3 of that roster were recruited or added to the roster after 02, and most of those after 04. At present we are undertaking a complete rebuild, but staggering it rather than a scorched earth we've seen elsewhere. In 5-6 years it will be a complete rebuild with likely only Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi and maybe one or two of DDK, AA & Little Svech left...so with even more than 2/3 of the roster replaced.

Whether you rebuild by bottoming out or rebuild on the fly, its still a rebuild!

 

[kliq]

If you look at the 02 team vs the 08 team, 2/3 of that roster were recruited or added to the roster after 02, and most of those after 04. At present we are undertaking a complete rebuild, but staggering it rather than a scorched earth we've seen elsewhere. In 5-6 years it will be a complete rebuild with likely only Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi and maybe one or two of DDK, AA & Little Svech left...so with even more than 2/3 of the roster replaced.

Whether you rebuild by bottoming out or rebuild on the fly, its still a rebuild!

Yes agreed, didnt imply otherwise.

I guess my point is that I would classify what is going on now as "a complete rebuild", as its much more of a "rebuild" then what happened in 2002-2008.

 

[lomekian]

Yes agreed, didnt imply otherwise.

I guess my point is that I would classify what is going on now as "a complete rebuild", as its much more of a "rebuild" then what happened in 2002-2008.

I think we agree - I just think the roster turnover 02-08 was massively underrated by many as a task, and, frankly, we are still early stages in our current roster rebuild.

 

[kliq]

I think we agree - I just think the roster turnover 02-08 was massively underrated by many as a task, and, frankly, we are still early stages in our current roster rebuild.

100% agree, IMO that is the crowning achievement of Ken Holland's career. After re-reading your original post, I see I took it out of context, because after my second read I agree with it. My bad.

 

[Claypool]

I think we agree - I just think the roster turnover 02-08 was massively underrated by many as a task, and, frankly, we are still early stages in our current roster rebuild.

Don't forget letting Dave Lewis walk and hiring Mike Babcock. He did not have a great coaching resume at the time and was not a slam dunk hire.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Whether you rebuild by bottoming out or rebuild on the fly, its still a rebuild!

But those two things are not equally likely to create a contender. A top 5 player is almost always better to have than a player taken from 10-15. It's objectively better to have Connor McDavid than Dylan Larkin.

I mean, surely the primary goal of a rebuild is to land the very best players possible? And by that reasoning, a rebuild needs to do whatever will give a team the best chance at landing the very best players.

A metaphor, I suppose: you can score goals from virtually anywhere on the ice. The only difference is how likely you are to make the shot. And for the most part, the closer you get to the goal, the better your chances to score. If you can choose to shoot from anywhere on the ice, why not right in front of the net? That's so close that it would be really hard to miss. Why take yourself back to the circle or even the blue line when you don't have to? If your primary consideration is how many goals you can score, why would you stand anywhere else? Or if you can't always stand right in front, why wouldn't you endeavor to stand as close as possible for your situation?

And that doesn't even fully represent the situation, because not only does standing closer make you more likely to score, it also increases the magnitude of scoring. Standing closer has a chance to count for multiple goals, and standing further away has a chance to count for less than normal—in addition to a greater chance to miss.

Given these constraints, I don't see why anyone would choose to stand further away (that is, draft later in the round). I have no idea how that would be a rational strategy.

 

[jkutswings]

But those two things are not equally likely to create a contender. A top 5 player is almost always better to have than a player taken from 10-15. It's objectively better to have Connor McDavid than Dylan Larkin.

I mean, surely the primary goal of a rebuild is to land the very best players possible? And by that reasoning, a rebuild needs to do whatever will give a team the best chance at landing the very best players.

A metaphor, I suppose: you can score goals from virtually anywhere on the ice. The only difference is how likely you are to make the shot. And for the most part, the closer you get to the goal, the better your chances to score. If you can choose to shoot from anywhere on the ice, why not right in front of the net? That's so close that it would be really hard to miss. Why take yourself back to the circle or even the blue line when you don't have to? If your primary consideration is how many goals you can score, why would you stand anywhere else? Or if you can't always stand right in front, why wouldn't you endeavor to stand as close as possible for your situation?

And that doesn't even fully represent the situation, because not only does standing closer make you more likely to score, it also increases the magnitude of scoring. Standing closer has a chance to count for multiple goals, and standing further away has a chance to count for less than normal—in addition to a greater chance to miss.

Given these constraints, I don't see why anyone would choose to stand further away (that is, draft later in the round). I have no idea how that would be a rational strategy.

They'd rather make more money from the fans that still attend games for a mediocre product, than maximize their chances of landing truly elite players.

Sports teams have zero loyalty to fans. Which is why I have come to view NHL hockey as simply one entertainment option among many.

It just happens to be an option that includes message board discussion.

 

[SCD]

[QUOTE="jSports teams have zero loyalty to fans. [/QUOTE]

Is it zero loyalty or the GMs not making decisions based on fan polls ?

Unlike some teams, we have been lucky because spending money on salaries has never been an issue. Ownership has never put a limit on spending. That is part of the reason the NHL has made so many changes over the years because we were too competitive. The league wants parity. Salary caps and penalties for back-diving contracts had a lot to do with what Detroit was doing to stay competitive.

But, it is a business. A true tank will turn away the casual fans and sponsors.

There is nothing I have seen so far that would suggest the ownership is satisfied with mediocrity. A major part of the rebuild is riding out some of these contracts while the kids mature.

 

[Datsyukian Deke]

Do Wings fans still think Blashill is a bad coach?

Absolutely. Ever since his start he's appeared to be in way over his head by attempting to mimic Babcock but not knowing what to do in the process. Even something as simple as creating lines that don't leave you scratching your head constantly, has been a struggle for him.

How both he & Holland are still employed is beyond me.

 

[jkutswings]

Is it zero loyalty or the GMs not making decisions based on fan polls ?

Sports is mostly about the money in every facet, not just on-ice decisions.

If a season ticket holder for 20 years suddenly loses his job, and temporarily cannot afford to renew his seats, even just for one year...does the team show any loyalty? No, he goes to the back of the line like anybody else, and they happily take the next guy's cash.

If a team significantly underperforms relative to the previous season, are there any decreases in pricing for tickets and merchandise, let alone any noteworthy incentives to the investors? Not a chance.

And I'm not necessarily saying there SHOULD be. Just that sports are business, and teams care primarily about profits, so fans are simply wallets. And while the entertainment industry might finally have the diversity and convenience to change things in the near future, historically most markets have had enough fans on a waiting list in reserve, that it would take a gigantic blunder to put any real dent in the golden goose.

Sure, the PR staff and the broadcasting team sells the story lines and the emotional angle. And I'm sure that on some level, each owner and front office does want to win. But The Detroit Red Wings organization doesn't look at Bob from Wyandotte as a husband with 2 kids and a mortgage, who learned to love hockey by being cousins with Ted Lindsay's neighbor. They see revenue sharing and sales figures and marketing trends, and they make decisions based on financial risk vs return on investment.

And this rebuild is no different, which is my point. The Wings are trying to make safe moves with relatively quick turnaround, to buffer the transition and with primary focus on getting back to selling out LCA, not to chase another Cup at all costs.

 

[SCD]

Just that sports are business, and teams care primarily about profits, so fans are simply wallets.

True it is a business, but not every owner cares about making big profits.

Many of these owners are so rich, this is about bragging rights. Nobody is trying to lose money, but turning a profit is not the primary goal for most of them. Most will make money on the long term increased value of the franchise.

 

[Pavels Dog]

And this rebuild is no different, which is my point. The Wings are trying to make safe moves with relatively quick turnaround, to buffer the transition and with primary focus on getting back to selling out LCA, not to chase another Cup at all costs.

Well what would "chasing a cup at all costs" even look like in your opinion?

 

[jkutswings]

Well what would "chasing a cup at all costs" even look like in your opinion?

There isn't just one way to do it. At the most extreme end of the spectrum is scorched Earth, but that's far from the only way.

Stop signing players over 30 unless you're virtually guaranteed to get a good return at the deadline. Build from the defense first when possible, since that position busts most often, takes the longest to develop, and has the longest games played. Draft for highest ceiling over highest floor. Keep at least a few million in cap space at all times, while always looking for ways to add picks and/or prospects. Assuming Bernier is remotely competent, deal Howard at the deadline or before. If AA has any semblance of a good stretch, shop him in a package for a defensive prospect or draft pick.

Guys like Green (the sequel), Daley, and Vanek (the sequel) serve no purpose, because they won't return anything and won't be here if/when the team is any good again. They just fill out the roster to keep the status quo.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Sports is mostly about the money in every facet, not just on-ice decisions.

If a season ticket holder for 20 years suddenly loses his job, and temporarily cannot afford to renew his seats, even just for one year...does the team show any loyalty? No, he goes to the back of the line like anybody else, and they happily take the next guy's cash.

If a team significantly underperforms relative to the previous season, are there any decreases in pricing for tickets and merchandise, let alone any noteworthy incentives to the investors? Not a chance.

And I'm not necessarily saying there SHOULD be. Just that sports are business, and teams care primarily about profits, so fans are simply wallets. And while the entertainment industry might finally have the diversity and convenience to change things in the near future, historically most markets have had enough fans on a waiting list in reserve, that it would take a gigantic blunder to put any real dent in the golden goose.

Sure, the PR staff and the broadcasting team sells the story lines and the emotional angle. And I'm sure that on some level, each owner and front office does want to win. But The Detroit Red Wings organization doesn't look at Bob from Wyandotte as a husband with 2 kids and a mortgage, who learned to love hockey by being cousins with Ted Lindsay's neighbor. They see revenue sharing and sales figures and marketing trends, and they make decisions based on financial risk vs return on investment.

And this rebuild is no different, which is my point. The Wings are trying to make safe moves with relatively quick turnaround, to buffer the transition and with primary focus on getting back to selling out LCA, not to chase another Cup at all costs.

Willfully losing is chasing Cups at all cost. Gotcha. So for example, not trading a 3rd for Zidlicky when you need an offensive D and Backman + Janmark for Cole when you need a Franzen replacement. That's chasing a Cup at all costs, but making those moves for rental players to try to win in the playoffs, that's not going after a Cup.

 

[jkutswings]

Willfully losing is chasing Cups at all cost. Gotcha. So for example, not trading a 3rd for Zidlicky when you need an offensive D and Backman + Janmark for Cole when you need a Franzen replacement. That's chasing a Cup at all costs, but making those moves for rental players to try to win in the playoffs, that's not going after a Cup.

Umm, no. Chasing a Cup at all costs is first predicated on a connection with the reality of your current state of the competitive cycle.

So when you have the horses to win it all - or are only 1 to 2 pieces away - you go for it, usually by making that final splash via free agency.
When you're still building in the right direction, but are several pieces away, you patiently continue the process, with maybe a minor move here or there, but largely via the draft.
When you no longer have a realistic chance to win a championship, you start dismantling your current roster to build a new one, with the focus of once again trying to win 16 playoff games.

Detroit kept renting even after they were the JV team to the real playoff squads. They didn't need to completely blow it up at once, dealing a Datsyuk type player, but they definitely should have been making minor sales instead of minor buys, and prioritizing long term success over short term stability.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Stop signing players over 30 unless you're virtually guaranteed to get a good return at the deadline. Build from the defense first when possible, since that position busts most often, takes the longest to develop, and has the longest games played. Draft for highest ceiling over highest floor. Keep at least a few million in cap space at all times, while always looking for ways to add picks and/or prospects.

See, most of this I view as some minor tuning of a train that's still on the same track. Like, most of it boils down to "add picks and prospects"... which we have been doing at pretty much the highest rate in the league the last few years.
And in the case of "draft for ceiling", it's vague and debatable and essentially translates to "draft well" since no one cares if scouts saw a high ceiling in a failed pick. We're no better off because we had Pulkkinen, Sproul, Jurco and Mrazek. Meanwhile supposedly low ceiling prospects like Larkin and Bertuzzi are big parts of our future and Rasmussen is trending to be too.

 

[jkutswings]

See, most of this I view as some minor tuning of a train that's still on the same track. Like, most of it boils down to "add picks and prospects"... which we have been doing at pretty much the highest rate in the league the last few years.
And in the case of "draft for ceiling", it's vague and debatable and essentially translates to "draft well" since no one cares if scouts saw a high ceiling in a failed pick. We're no better off because we had Pulkkinen, Sproul, Jurco and Mrazek. Meanwhile supposedly low ceiling prospects like Larkin and Bertuzzi are big parts of our future and Rasmussen is trending to be too.

How is building a defense first, versus still having zero candidates for a top pairing defenseman, "minor tuning of a train that's still on the same track"? And how exactly is Bertuzzi a big part of the future? He's secondary scoring with some grit...which is needed, but far from a crucial piece. He's not any more important for this rebuild than Abdelkader ended up being for the last attempt.

I guess we just agree to disagree.