I don't think you understand what contradicting means. There was no reason for Holland to lock up Holland into almost elite #1 money when he had faltered numerous times in the playoffs and a prospect with potentially more skill and ability than him would be up on the team within a couple years.
Right, but you're just doing the game where 'not winning the cup' = failing, which is a dumb game. Howard was fine in 3 of 4 playoff runs. Not spectacular for the most part, but fine. The other dumb game you're playing is the one where mystical upside is more valuable than actual performance. Were that kind of thinking accurate we'd be celebrating the 5th straight Cup win of the Edmonton Oilers.
If the absence of proving himself was a detriment to a guy with 200+ NHL starts it absolutely was that 10 times over for a guy who had ~50 AHL starts. That is your point of internal contradiction. If it disqualifies one as an option it should disqualify both as options.
Now Holland is going to be in deep trouble when Mrazek needs to be paid and continues to force the organizations hand in playing him the majority of games over his 5.3m/yr counterpart.
That's true, but it's also being Hindsight Man. Had Detroit let Howard walk rather than lock him up, they'd have been in worse shape the past three years than they were anyway. Had Mrazek then not turned out to be very good they'd be screwed totally.
So sure, if you're functioning in a version of the multiverse where you can be 100% certain that Mrazek's a bonafide 1a and you know this in 2012, obviously that has an effect on the pressures surrounding what sort of deal to make Howard.
Over here, however, there was a not-insignificant group of people making the case that Mrazek hadn't shown enough to be the starter out of camp
this year. In
2016. 29ish months after the Howard deal was signed. I disagreed with them, but it wasn't just three guys named Daryl.
We've seen too many times in the NHL that good to great NHL goalies are available more often than not, and Holland really should be putting money into good defensemen and not just 'any' defensemen.
I agree with your position on roster-construction but we are, for the most part, alone on that. If a team finds a goalie they think they can trust that team then employs the time-honored strategy of 'a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush' and locks them up.
Honestly, even with Mrazek blossoming behind him had Howard maintained his pre-contract level of play I wouldn't be as averse to his contract. Heck if he was still a 2.39 .917 guy I think Mrazek would be an amazing trade piece that could bring back a bonafide #1 or #2 dman. As a 2.66 .910 guy, the team has to keep Mrazek.
I liked the deal at the time, but that still doesn't excuse Holland from making bad signing after bad signing since only compounding the issue.
Enh. I think you're being a bit hyper-critical on the natures of the signings. The bad contracts on the team right now are, in order: Howard, E, Franzen. We're kind of edging to the point where the Z contract will start being a problem.
The other contracts on the roster are either values or neutrals.
Holland (like a lot of GMs) view a lot of their current players are irreplaceable. That's a big reason why so many teams end up in cap hell.
Well, when a GM signs a guy to a contract it's typically because they think that guy was worth that contract. By definition this creates an environment were a GM is unlikely to move off that player barring something substantial happening. A new GM doesn't have that investment, and changeover at that position is where you tend to see long term contracts moved.
To be fair, Holland has walked away from Fil and Hudler and Tootoo and Weiss and Brunner, among others, so it's not like he welds himself to every player, nor do I think you are suggesting (or should) that a team commit themselves to
no players and just run their prospects out the door.
In order to have a successful team you have to be able to have a continuance of identity, and that's not something you can have by turning over 10+ roster spots every year or so.
Detroit has all of 9 contracts that run to the year after next. That's it. And 3 of those they just signed (Green, Nyquist, Abdelkader) with a 4th being Larkin's ELC. It's not like the team is extending a bunch of guys out into the sunset.
10 forwards expire either this year or next year. 5 dmen expire either this year or next year. Mrazek's up after this year. 16 guys (I guess 15 if you remove Kindl) on or around the teams active 23-man are up within 18 months.