GDT: Wings vs flames 1/2/19 7:00 pm est

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

like the zadina pick but would be cute if wings had 2 hughes bros

No, it wouldn't. I'd like having them both because they're premier hockey players/prospects, but I couldn't give one flying fig less about whether they're related.

Same with the Svechnikovs. The Sedins were so good because they were both top 3 talents in the draft.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

A 48 point pace for a rookie defenseman and your reaction is "meh"?

The team needs high-end talent. The best chance to get that high-end talent is early in the draft. Therefore the best opportunity for the team to contend again is for them to have as bad a record as possible now in order to get the best talent for the future.

Good management alone cannot win championships.

What? Yes it can. Best chances, sure. But Nashville has created a depth on their blueline that is the envy of the league... and the only guy they took with a true lottery win was Seth Jones (who they traded).

The reason why it seems good management can't do it is because there is a ridiculous dearth of good management teams in the league right now.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

What? Yes it can. Best chances, sure. But Nashville has created a depth on their blueline that is the envy of the league... and the only guy they took with a true lottery win was Seth Jones (who they traded).

The reason why it seems good management can't do it is because there is a ridiculous dearth of good management teams in the league right now.

So they gained a high profile talent high in the draft and were able to help build their team with that asset?

Also how many cups does Nashville have?

Would it be better if I said "Good management alone is very unlikely to win championships"?

 

[pz29]

Yeah the 18 year old D on pace for 50 points and playing like a number one dman isnt killing it lol.

That is not what I'm saying. Pull up last year's post and see how many hear made it sound that if we could only get Dahlin, all our problems would be solved. I can't read people's minds and have to go by what they write here. Now, the name is Hughes. Next year, it'll be someone else. I blame the league, not the fans, by the way for creating such a system.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

That is not what I'm saying. Pull up last year's post and see how many hear made it sound that if we could only get Dahlin, all our problems would be solved. I can't read people's minds and have to go by what they write here. Now, the name is Hughes. Next year, it'll be someone else. I blame the league, not the fans, by the way for creating such a system.

Dahlin wouldn't solve our problems but it would turn the team in a whole new better direction.

 

[HIFE]

That is not what I'm saying. Pull up last year's post and see how many hear made it sound that if we could only get Dahlin, all our problems would be solved. I can't read people's minds and have to go by what they write here. Now, the name is Hughes. Next year, it'll be someone else. I blame the league, not the fans, by the way for creating such a system.

You can't blame people who want the highest talent players to help us win games. And "the system" within professional sports has been in place for decades- that is giving the teams with the worst records 1st pick of the best players. It's only fair (and compassionate) to aid in creating parity and hope among every fanbase.

A Dahlin, Hughes, or even McDavid obviously isn't the single answer to becoming elite, but they're all great pieces to rebuild with. Wings fans had 25 years of dominant, thrilling, skilled hockey to enjoy on a nightly basis and I think most of us long for that type of entertainment again.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

That is not what I'm saying. Pull up last year's post and see how many hear made it sound that if we could only get Dahlin, all our problems would be solved. I can't read people's minds and have to go by what they write here. Now, the name is Hughes. Next year, it'll be someone else. I blame the league, not the fans, by the way for creating such a system.

There is a reason professional sports leagues are generally set up this way.

Hughes would be a big help to get this team back to contention. Dahlin would have been a big help. Matthews would have been a big help. No single player solves all the problems of a team, but a single player can certainly make things significantly easier going forward.

 

[Hammettf2b]

So they gained a high profile talent high in the draft and were able to help build their team with that asset?

Also how many cups does Nashville have?

Would it be better if I said "Good management alone is very unlikely to win championships"?

Nashvilles lack of championships doesn't devalue their blueline so theres no reason to even bring up number of championships.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Nashvilles lack of championships doesn't devalue their blueline so theres no reason to even bring up number of championships.

There absolutely is a reason to bring it up in the context of this conversation.

Good management alone cannot win championships.

And I even said in that post I would be willing to walk it back to "Good management alone is very unlikely to win championships."

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

There is a reason professional sports leagues are generally set up this way.

Hughes would be a big help to get this team back to contention. Dahlin would have been a big help. Matthews would have been a big help. No single player solves all the problems of a team, but a single player can certainly make things significantly easier going forward.

Yes. But basically in the last 5-10 years, there has begun a wholesale movement to "If you aren't first, you're last." Even with a lottery in place that should deter that. That if you're not actively a top competitor, you should suck as hard as you can. And that's where the disconnect lies with me. It should never be preferable or potentially preferable to have something like "oh, we should sit Matthew Stafford if we're the Lions because we have no chance." "We should trade away literally any piece with any remote concept of value attached to it because it makes us suck more so we get a better player."

I mean, it's getting to where you have about half of your league not trying in the slightest to make the playoffs and that's disgusting to me.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yes. But basically in the last 5-10 years, there has begun a wholesale movement to "If you aren't first, you're last." Even with a lottery in place that should deter that. That if you're not actively a top competitor, you should suck as hard as you can. And that's where the disconnect lies with me. It should never be preferable or potentially preferable to have something like "oh, we should sit Matthew Stafford if we're the Lions because we have no chance." "We should trade away literally any piece with any remote concept of value attached to it because it makes us suck more so we get a better player."

I mean, it's getting to where you have about half of your league not trying in the slightest to make the playoffs and that's disgusting to me.

Not everyone has the same "tanking" philosophy, and I think you are severely simplifying the logic behind the "tank" mindset.

Not to mention a team does not need to be tanking to trade away talent that may have limited long-term value.

 

[Hammettf2b]

There absolutely is a reason to bring it up in the context of this conversation.



And I even said in that post I would be willing to walk it back to "Good management alone is very unlikely to win championships."

I would like to hear your reasoning of how their lack of championships makes their blueline not as good as people think. I would think they either have a good blueline/just ok/or not good at all and i would choose a good blueline for that team 100% of the time even with the lack of championships.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I would like to hear your reasoning of how their lack of championships makes their blueline not as good as people think. I would think they either have a good blueline/just ok/or not good at all and i would choose a good blueline for that team 100% of the time even with the lack of championships.

This isn't arguing against what I said, this is arguing something different from what I said.

I am not saying they have a bad blueline. I am saying the team has not won a championship and it is supportive of my assertion that good management alone cannot (or is unlikely to) win championships.

 

[jkutswings]

Yes. But basically in the last 5-10 years, there has begun a wholesale movement to "If you aren't first, you're last." Even with a lottery in place that should deter that. That if you're not actively a top competitor, you should suck as hard as you can. And that's where the disconnect lies with me. It should never be preferable or potentially preferable to have something like "oh, we should sit Matthew Stafford if we're the Lions because we have no chance." "We should trade away literally any piece with any remote concept of value attached to it because it makes us suck more so we get a better player."

I mean, it's getting to where you have about half of your league not trying in the slightest to make the playoffs and that's disgusting to me.

Personal preference. I'm not interested in whether a given team wins a random regular season game. I'd go to Comerica Park to ride the ferris wheel or just have a drink and enjoy the sunshine for that. If I'm going to regularly spend 2-4 hours of my time on a product of entertainment - let alone any finances - then I want the assembling of a championship caliber roster to be their one and only priority.

So if the reasonable chance to win it all is now, then load up.
If the window has closed, then blow it up.

Otherwise you get the Lions or the Pistons, where they ride the elevator of 0.400 - 0.600 winning percentage for years (or decades) on end, while never having the talent to really contend, but never having the assets to get real talent.

I understand what you're saying from the standpoint of integrity and honest competition. But in terms of results, that strategy results in the vast majority of a given league being pointless to watch.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Personal preference. I'm not interested in whether a given team wins a random regular season game. I'd go to Comerica Park to ride the ferris wheel or just have a drink and enjoy the sunshine for that. If I'm going to regularly spend 2-4 hours of my time on a product of entertainment - let alone any finances - then I want the assembling of a championship caliber roster to be their one and only priority.

So if the reasonable chance to win it all is now, then load up.
If the window has closed, then blow it up.

Otherwise you get the Lions or the Pistons, where they ride the elevator of 0.400 - 0.600 winning percentage for years (or decades) on end, while never having the talent to really contend, but never having the assets to get real talent.

I understand what you're saying from the standpoint of integrity and honest competition. But in terms of results, that strategy results in the vast majority of a given league being pointless to watch.

I mean, is the vast majority of the league meaningful to watch now? Do you care about Arizona/Edmonton on a Thursday night? How about Anaheim/St. Louis?

And Lions, yes. I understand that. That's also because they have ludicrously awful ownership and executives and have forever.
The Pistons are an awful example though. Twice they've built juggernaut teams that won titles and probably should have won more than they did.

I do understand the different priorities. But I'm speaking in more of a casual fan aspect of someone who doesn't have a team or doesn't care to their core that the team wins. THAT is the majority of the fanbase. Your idea at the top (go to Comerica, ride the Ferris wheel, and enjoy yourself) is 99% of the fanbases in the world. And that's the kind of people I'd be worried about tuning out if I were the Illitches. Because nutjobs like you and me and everyone around here? We're lifers. We're set in our ways and will always be here. Little Johnny down the street or Sara from Accounting who latches onto AA or Larkin, if the Wings stop trying at an organizational level, you might lose him or her for good. And not just from a Red Wings standpoint. Less fans of individual teams means less fans of the NHL overall.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I do understand the different priorities. But I'm speaking in more of a casual fan aspect of someone who doesn't have a team or doesn't care to their core that the team wins. THAT is the majority of the fanbase. Your idea at the top (go to Comerica, ride the Ferris wheel, and enjoy yourself) is 99% of the fanbases in the world. And that's the kind of people I'd be worried about tuning out if I were the Illitches. Because nutjobs like you and me and everyone around here? We're lifers. We're set in our ways and will always be here. Little Johnny down the street or Sara from Accounting who latches onto AA or Larkin, if the Wings stop trying at an organizational level, you might lose him or her for good. And not just from a Red Wings standpoint. Less fans of individual teams means less fans of the NHL overall.

How many teams are not trying to win on an organizational level? Teams are bad for a number of different reasons. Intentionally fielding an inadequate roster (i.e. "tanking") is only one of them. You don't think Philly or Stl or LA is subjectively trying to win? They absolutely are, they just aren't getting it done at the moment. I also can't fault teams that are incapable of being successful today from taking steps to be successful tomorrow. That is pretty rational behavior from where I am sitting.

As to your other point, winning is what brings back the fans. That is the way it has always been.

 

[jkutswings]

I mean, is the vast majority of the league meaningful to watch now? Do you care about Arizona/Edmonton on a Thursday night? How about Anaheim/St. Louis?

That's my point. Those teams are trying to win each game, but are doing a bad job at the quality of product they're putting on the ice, so it's not worth watching. In general, if it's not a marquee matchup, there are very few regular season NHL games that I bother with.

And Lions, yes. I understand that. That's also because they have ludicrously awful ownership and executives and have forever.

And so I stopped watching years ago. No idea how anybody still puts a shred of effort into following that debacle of a franchise...beyond a source of mockery, I suppose.

The Pistons are an awful example though. Twice they've built juggernaut teams that won titles and probably should have won more than they did.

Past tense, yes. But now their strategy appears to be to deny the reality of the current product, and hope they "catch lightning in a bottle" (aka, somehow make a lower playoff seed, only to get trucked in the first round). Past success doesn't pardon current ineptitude.

I do understand the different priorities. But I'm speaking in more of a casual fan aspect of someone who doesn't have a team or doesn't care to their core that the team wins. THAT is the majority of the fanbase. Your idea at the top (go to Comerica, ride the Ferris wheel, and enjoy yourself) is 99% of the fanbases in the world. And that's the kind of people I'd be worried about tuning out if I were the Illitches. Because nutjobs like you and me and everyone around here? We're lifers. We're set in our ways and will always be here. Little Johnny down the street or Sara from Accounting who latches onto AA or Larkin, if the Wings stop trying at an organizational level, you might lose him or her for good. And not just from a Red Wings standpoint. Less fans of individual teams means less fans of the NHL overall.

From a business perspective, that's logical. But when has being a fan been about logic? A team can dance for me, or I can spend my time elsewhere. If Joe Lunchbox wants to spend his paycheck on a mediocre product, that's his choice, but it doesn't change what interests me.

 

[pz29]

Yes. But basically in the last 5-10 years, there has begun a wholesale movement to "If you aren't first, you're last." Even with a lottery in place that should deter that. That if you're not actively a top competitor, you should suck as hard as you can. And that's where the disconnect lies with me. It should never be preferable or potentially preferable to have something like "oh, we should sit Matthew Stafford if we're the Lions because we have no chance." "We should trade away literally any piece with any remote concept of value attached to it because it makes us suck more so we get a better player."

I mean, it's getting to where you have about half of your league not trying in the slightest to make the playoffs and that's disgusting to me.

Thanks for articulating this so well. That's exactly the argument I'm trying to make here. About 20 teams are basically irrelevant in this league right now.

 

[pz29]

Dahlin wouldn't solve our problems but it would turn the team in a whole new better direction.

Not by himself. I guarantee you that if we had him on the roster this year, many would still argue for a tank so can get Hughes or whoever. When does this stop?

 

[pz29]

A 48 point pace for a rookie defenseman and your reaction is "meh"?

The team needs high-end talent. The best chance to get that high-end talent is early in the draft. Therefore the best opportunity for the team to contend again is for them to have as bad a record as possible now in order to get the best talent for the future.

Good management alone cannot win championships.

You have just agreed with me. The system is set in a bad way. Also, this is not pond hockey where one player can win games. Good coaching and systems matter as well.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

You have just agreed with me. The system is set in a bad way. Also, this is not pond hockey where one player can win games. Good coaching and systems matter as well.

But good coaching and systems can't succeed without that high end talent, and since you don't develop good coaches or good systems in the draft, that is a red herring.

I do not believe a system which gives the worst teams the best chance to pick themselves back up again is a bad one. That is how professional sports should operate to keep teams from going under due to previous failures (management, luck, etc.).

 

[jkutswings]

Not by himself. I guarantee you that if we had him on the roster this year, many would still argue for a tank so can get Hughes or whoever. When does this stop?

When the collective youth have shown enough talent that you would not only make the playoffs, but would at least have a puncher's chance at winning a round.

If you're still not a playoff team, then keep hoarding picks and acquiring new talent.
If you're only getting into the playoffs to be first round cannon fodder, with zero chance at anything more, don't bother.
But if the kids have begun putting it together, and really might be able to pull an upset in Round 1, then you have a new core on the rise, and you let the chips fall where they may as you continue to build around that core.

 

[Nut Upstrom]

Having finished watching the game earlier today, I have to say that anybody trying to deny Larkin any consideration for the Selke trophy just needs to roll the film on this game.
He looked okay overall, looked dangerous in the offensive zone, but otherwise he was often out of position or chasing the puck and his line was owned by the Monahan line.
No shame in this, of course, that Calgary top line is one of the top two in the entire league, but this is one occasion when D-Boss did not rise to the occasion when going up against another team's best.

He was/is a low-flying dark horse for the Selke anyways, but for a trophy that seems to be based at least 50% on reputation and name recognition, he's laying a solid foundation for future awards - minus last night of course.

I mean, is the vast majority of the league meaningful to watch now? Do you care about Arizona/Edmonton on a Thursday night? How about Anaheim/St. Louis?

And Lions, yes. I understand that. That's also because they have ludicrously awful ownership and executives and have forever.
The Pistons are an awful example though. Twice they've built juggernaut teams that won titles and probably should have won more than they did.

I do understand the different priorities. But I'm speaking in more of a casual fan aspect of someone who doesn't have a team or doesn't care to their core that the team wins. THAT is the majority of the fanbase. Your idea at the top (go to Comerica, ride the Ferris wheel, and enjoy yourself) is 99% of the fanbases in the world. And that's the kind of people I'd be worried about tuning out if I were the Illitches. Because nutjobs like you and me and everyone around here? We're lifers. We're set in our ways and will always be here. Little Johnny down the street or Sara from Accounting who latches onto AA or Larkin, if the Wings stop trying at an organizational level, you might lose him or her for good. And not just from a Red Wings standpoint. Less fans of individual teams means less fans of the NHL overall.

Speaking of the great Pistons great teams, the NBA Network is currently televising the 89 then 90 championship clinching games. Good stuff, great times, loved them bad boys.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Not by himself. I guarantee you that if we had him on the roster this year, many would still argue for a tank so can get Hughes or whoever. When does this stop?

This post makes no sense. It like saying my fridge is empty so who cares if have a prime steak dinner tonight.

 

[pz29]

This post makes no sense. It like saying my fridge is empty so who cares if have a prime steak dinner tonight.

Pull up some posts from last year and see how many "if we could only have Dahlin as a result of this tank..." type of thoughts. I am done with this argument. Obviously, many people on this board are not interested in having a competitive team now and are willing to wait 10-plus years for some miracle to happen.