Wings fan spoke: It's Time for Holland to move on (but we'll still talk about him)

[jkutswings]

We don't even know if Larkin actually is a future 1st line center or if Mrazek will be a reliable starting goalie.

If you consider the possibility one or both of those don't materialize, it's looking rough. We've kind of taken for granted they'd just pan out and compete with other top tier talents.

True, but the point remains that a significant rebuild doesn't automatically include trading one or both of them.

Would I be willing to do so if the right deal came along? Sure. But I think it's POSSIBLE to still retain them, trade a few other players, and use high draft picks to provide the remainder of the next core.

 

[SirKillalot]

I'd give our goaltending an 8/10 personally. Sure Howard is bad and expensive but put Mrazek behind an NHL defense and I think he'd be a perennial vezinna candidate, winning it frequently. He's carrying this team right now. I'd give our defense a 3/10. Dekeyser is a #3 defenseman. Green a #4. The others would struggle to make pretty much any other roster.

I was leaning towards that. But, the inconsistency and injuries that has been, made it not make it.

I don't think our D is that bad. I mean, it's good. But, it's not THAT bad. Now, in terms of how the team wants to play, it sure have it's challenges.

There needs to be a tough goal bar with those at the D these coming years. I feel like the team doesn't have any specific "you must be able to make these goals" in regards to their D's. It's been more let's play them and see how they do.

At least, that's my perception of what info has come out in the media. Clearly it shouldn't be that within the team. But, one can't see improvement soon, one got to sacrifice forwards. They produce enough forwards to sacrifice some. Clearly when one can afford to let some fly on waivers.

True, but the point remains that a significant rebuild doesn't automatically include trading one or both of them.

Would I be willing to do so if the right deal came along? Sure. But I think it's POSSIBLE to still retain them, trade a few other players, and use high draft picks to provide the remainder of the next core.

I don't see the point of trading those two. If Yzerman could play on a mediocre/crappy team for years, so could these guys. We got plenty of others who in a package would fetch a quality top four or possibly top two defenseman.

 

[avssuc]

This comment is dishonest and hyperbolic. The dead things era was a completely different beast with bad ownership and management.

You may not like the way ownership/management is running the team, but please don't compare this era to the dead things era. That's a direct insult to us oldtimers who had to live through that era.

What defines "bad ownership"? I'll use actual NHL owners in my examples...

-One NHL owner made a very hasty decision, firing his general manager for trading away a pending UFA. The deal returned several top tier prospects (that turned into top flight starters), but the owner made a rash move even though almost everyone said his GM won large. This is compounded this with the fact that the fired GM was immediately signed after his removal, then guided his new team to instant success for years to come. Is that bad?

-One NHL owner built a new arena (at large taxpayer cost), and had the balls to help structure the deal in a way that took $10+ million annually away from public schools for 30 years straight? Is that bad?

-One NHL owner (also a self-made billionaire) lied about a $60 million act of benevolence when he was floating PR to put him in a better position to obtain tax funds for his new arena. The reality was, he only gave roughly half the stated sum, and the reality of that was even more deceitful. Through a confidential agreement that couldn't' be leaked to thew press, the owner has recapture abilities, ones that are fairly easy to obtain. This places the cost on the taxpayers. Is dude bad?

-Is the NHL owner that stole almost $100 million through ignoring conditions of a lease for his NHL arena be considered bad?



I know that most of this might not fit your criteria since it doesn't relate to the team performance, I was just curious as to what you would say in these cases.

 

[HockeyinHD]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. There's nobody on the team other than them with real trade value. They are good enough on their own to keep the team more competitive than you actually want them to be if you are tanking. The team has to meet a salary floor, so there will be enough competent players around them to make a team with them better than a top 5 pick.

I don't think people actually understand what tanking means. It's not 'keeping all the good young players I like a lot and using one 10-15ish pick a year to replenish a roster slowly'. It's 'get rid of everyone with real value and load up on 3+ early picks over the course of 2 seasons.'

Detroit has enough good, youngish players that if they kept Larkin and Mrazek and stayed above the floor they'd be outside the top 10 in picks every year. That's a stupid way to rebuild. There's no 'elite players' outside 10, and if the point of a tank is to get those guys, you're failing.

Seriously, look at how high the cap floor is. 54 million. Larkin and Mrazek would count for less than 10% of that through next season. If you actually want to rebuild through the draft competently, they have to go.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Would I be willing to do so if the right deal came along? Sure. But I think it's POSSIBLE to still retain them, trade a few other players, and use high draft picks to provide the remainder of the next core.

What is the 'highest' draft pick you think reliably allows for accomplishing what you want to accomplish through the draft? 3rd overall, 5th, 8th, 10th... where?

 

[Winger98]

I don't see the point of trading those two. If Yzerman could play on a mediocre/crappy team for years, so could these guys. We got plenty of others who in a package would fetch a quality top four or possibly top two defenseman.

Yeah, I don't really see the point of it, either. They are two guys we can build around now. Dealing them really just means that's two more guys we will have to acquire.

I think rebuilding could be done while remaining a bubble team if we were more willing to deal some assets for picks/prospects, and got just a little bit lucky in the draft. We might not be contending for the cup, but we're not doing that now.

 

[MTU hockey]

Yes, it does. There's nobody on the team other than them with real trade value. They are good enough on their own to keep the team more competitive than you actually want them to be if you are tanking. The team has to meet a salary floor, so there will be enough competent players around them to make a team with them better than a top 5 pick.

I don't think people actually understand what tanking means. It's not 'keeping all the good young players I like a lot and using one 10-15ish pick a year to replenish a roster slowly'. It's 'get rid of everyone with real value and load up on 3+ early picks over the course of 2 seasons.'

Detroit has enough good, youngish players that if they kept Larkin and Mrazek and stayed above the floor they'd be outside the top 10 in picks every year. That's a stupid way to rebuild. There's no 'elite players' outside 10, and if the point of a tank is to get those guys, you're failing.

Seriously, look at how high the cap floor is. 54 million. Larkin and Mrazek would count for less than 10% of that through next season. If you actually want to rebuild through the draft competently, they have to go.

I think this is mostly incorrect. I don't believe that Detroit has to commit to a scorched earth rebuild which would involve trading literally any valuable asset away for picks/prospects. I think they just need to do a mini rebuild of drafting in the top 5-10 for 4 years (this depends entirely on the quality and depth of those drafts though). The Wings don't need a generational talent like Mcdavid or a Mathews, although that would be nice. They just need an elite talent at forward and defense.

Typically rebuilds involve shipping out players 25 years or older for prospects/picks. Because by the time the team is going to be ready to compete the players that were older than 25 are going to be out of their primes. So for the red wings case that would mean shipping out players like Green, Smith, Nyquist, Tatar, and Vanek. This is where Kenny's deals come back to bite the team in the ass. Because Howard, Ericsson, Abby, and Helm should all be traded too but due to their cap hits + term on their contracts they are virtually untrade-able until they are in the last years of their deals.

I'm a huge fan of Larkin and Mrazek but it's ridiculous to suggest that they will keep the Wings from drafting top 10 all by themselves. Yzerman couldn't keep the wings from drafting top 10. The Leafs kept Kadri and JVR for their rebuild and I think the wings would be smart to keep Larkin and Mrazek. I'd say just let Kronner and Z play out their deals to help contribute to the rebuild and mentor the young guys as they are brought in.

Rebuilding Roster:
Z-Neilsen-Abby
XXX-Larkin-AA
XXX-Helm-XXX
XXX-XXX-XXX

DK- Ericsson
Kronner- XO/Sproul
XXX-XXX

Mrazek
XXX

Looks pretty destined to pick in the top 10 to me, and as Kronner and Z age the roster will continue to get worse. XXX can either be cheap 1 year deals for journeyman NHLers or they can be prospects from GR or those acquired by trading the players I mentioned above. To maximize losses only play Mrazek in ~50% of the games.

 

[Frk It]

What is the 'highest' draft pick you think reliably allows for accomplishing what you want to accomplish through the draft? 3rd overall, 5th, 8th, 10th... where?

I guess it depends on what level player you think we require, and how many players.

For me, I think we would be good with a year picking 5-10. Something that could get us a defenseman like: Ristolainen, Hamilton, Trouba, Lindholm, Werenski, Provorov. There are some misses in this range of course, but it has had a really nice return as of late.

Unless you think we need a Doughty, Ekblad, Hedman level defenseman. Then we would need a 1-5 pick... Which it would probably be hard for us to finish that bad.

If folks think we need another young promising center to go along with Larkin, not even sure a pick in the 6-15 range would get you something as good as you think. Just looked at that range for the 2010-2015 drafts and not a lot of great centers in there. But we may not need a high pick for that, because IMO we are good at drafting forwards still.

A year of drafting 5-10 and using that pick on a defenseman would be ideal for us at this moment in time, IMO. Kind of like what the Canadiens just did with drafting Sergachev.

 

[MTU hockey]

I guess it depends on what level player you think we require, and how many players.

For me, I think we would be good with a year picking 5-10. Something that could get us a defenseman like: Ristolainen, Hamilton, Trouba, Lindholm, Werenski, Provorov. There are some misses in this range of course, but it has had a really nice return as of late.

Unless you think we need a Doughty, Ekblad, Hedman level defenseman. Then we would need a 1-5 pick... Which it would probably be hard for us to finish that bad.

If folks think we need another young promising center to go along with Larkin, not even sure a pick in the 6-15 range would get you something as good as you think. Just looked at that range for the 2010-2015 drafts and not a lot of great centers in there. But we may not need a high pick for that, because IMO we are good at drafting forwards still.

A year of drafting 5-10 and using that pick on a defenseman would be ideal for us at this moment in time, IMO. Kind of like what the Canadiens just did with drafting Sergachev.

I agree, the 5-10 range seems ideal for picking up a solid defenseman. I don't think we necessarily need an elite center, but we need an elite forward. If larkin can be a 50-60 point 2way center then that's prolly good enough. But it would be nice to have a PPG winger to take some of the load off offensively. Nyquist and Tatar are nice wingers but they aren't game changers, if we could get an elite offensive winger that would help tremendously.

 

[Retire91]

What's sad is we let Quincey walk, and he would easily be the 2nd or 3rd best player on this defence. Honestly, I'd rather have kept Quincey on a 1 year dear than sign Helm for a bazillion dollars.

Since the team was going to suck any way it was some emotional satisfaction seeing him walk considering the astronomical over payment Holland wasted to bring him here. Lidstrom out, Quincey in for only a first (Vasalevski and Maata still on the board) problem solved your's truly Holland.

 

[Squirrel in the Hole]

As Curly would say: Ohhhhh... look


http://www.tsn.ca/talent/a-look-at-potential-hot-seat-situations-across-the-nhl-1.600270


Ken Holland: The Detroit GM needs to fix the Wings defence, which has been awful and is dragging down the club. They don’t have the personnel. They don’t have a top pairing. Danny DeKeyser is being pushed well beyond his limits in the No. 1 slot and everyone below him is at least one station above his abilities. DeKeyser is a No. 3 at best but he’s playing top-pairing minutes. The Wings can’t get the puck out of their own zone efficiently and they turn it over way too often. Holland needs to find a fix. Stat.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

As Curly would say: Ohhhhh... look


http://www.tsn.ca/talent/a-look-at-potential-hot-seat-situations-across-the-nhl-1.600270


Ken Holland: The Detroit GM needs to fix the Wings defence, which has been awful and is dragging down the club. They don’t have the personnel. They don’t have a top pairing. Danny DeKeyser is being pushed well beyond his limits in the No. 1 slot and everyone below him is at least one station above his abilities. DeKeyser is a No. 3 at best but he’s playing top-pairing minutes. The Wings can’t get the puck out of their own zone efficiently and they turn it over way too often. Holland needs to find a fix. Stat.

Almost sounds like someone here wrote this article!