News Article: Zetterberg to decide future later in July

Status
Not open for further replies.

lilidk

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
9,588
3,424
Tanking is a very bad idea. Players playing like they don't care , reducing their trading value , fans hating the team . yes we got lucky drafting Zadina at 6 , but we could grab very good player at #13.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,033
4,927
Wisconsin
Hank's future meaning what exactly?

With 3 more seasons under contract - is he looking to retire from the NHL at the end of this summer, or possibly after the 2018/2019 season?

As far as AA goes - if Holland can find a buyer why not move him?
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Hank's future meaning what exactly?

With 3 more seasons under contract - is he looking to retire from the NHL at the end of this summer, or possibly after the 2018/2019 season?

As far as AA goes - if Holland can find a buyer why not move him?

Maybe the plan is to move him, but to up his value first (and maybe why they got Vanek). Last season didnt do him or the Wings any favors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FMichael

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,033
4,927
Wisconsin
Maybe the plan is to move him, but to up his value first (and maybe why they got Vanek). Last season didnt do him or the Wings any favors.
I got nuthin against the kid, but AA holding out like he had gave me the opinion that maybe some of the rumours floating around might be true of him having an attitude.

And yeah - this past season did nothing for his value if Holland were gonna move him.

I'm more concerned about Larkin, and Hank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kliq and KJoe88

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,200
14,889
crease
Tanking is a very bad idea. Players playing like they don't care , reducing their trading value , fans hating the team . yes we got lucky drafting Zadina at 6 , but we could grab very good player at #13.

Cup winners since the Detroit Red Wings in 2008. Pittsburgh (Crosby, Fleury, Malkin), Chicago (Toews, Kane), Boston (Kessel - traded for Seguin), LA (Doughty, Schenn - traded for Richards), Washington (Ovechkin, Backstrom). In brackets are their top 5 picks (that I remember). And you'll notice quite a few #1 and 2 overalls in there.

Of the group, only Boston evades being a product of a healthy losing streak. Of course, Boston is the only one on the list other than Washington with a single Cup. Pittsburgh and Chicago both claimed 3, with LA getting 2.

So look, I get the pride of not tanking. I get the rhetoric that it's bad for morale and look at Edmonton and Phoenix. But the teams above are champions because they picked high multiple times AND made savvy moves to put those players into positions to win. You can bet against the odds, it happens time to time, but the bundle of hardware being handed out to those rosters puts a spotlight on how important elite talent is and where you find it.
 

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,033
4,927
Wisconsin
Cup winners since the Detroit Red Wings in 2008. Pittsburgh (Crosby, Fleury, Malkin), Chicago (Toews, Kane), Boston (Kessel - traded for Seguin), LA (Doughty, Schenn - traded for Richards), Washington (Ovechkin, Backstrom). In brackets are their top 5 picks (that I remember). And you'll notice quite a few #1 and 2 overalls in there.

Of the group, only Boston evades being a product of a healthy losing streak. Of course, Boston is the only one on the list other than Washington with a single Cup. Pittsburgh and Chicago both claimed 3, with LA getting 2.

So look, I get the pride of not tanking. I get the rhetoric that it's bad for morale and look at Edmonton and Phoenix. But the teams above are champions because they picked high multiple times AND made savvy moves to put those players into positions to win. You can bet against the odds, it happens time to time, but the bundle of hardware being handed out to those rosters puts a spotlight on how important elite talent is and where you find it.
Maybe in 2019 instead of dropping back 1 to 3 spots - we get lucky, and jump up a few, and continue stocking our shelves with quality.

Also - Holland fleeced some of his rival GMs with the deadline moves...Hope he can repeat since both the 2019, and 2020 draft classes will be similar to 2018 in terms of overall quality (or that what Pierre McGuire says).
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilidk

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,200
14,889
crease
Maybe in 2019 instead of dropping back 1 to 3 spots - we get lucky, and jump up a few, and continue stocking our shelves with quality.

Also - Holland fleeced some of his rival GMs with the deadline moves...Hope he can repeat since both the 2019, and 2020 draft classes will be similar to 2018 in terms of overall quality (or that what Pierre McGuire says).

Absolutely. I think this years draft and the moves Holland made during the season were a great start to the process.

Bringing back Vanek, though... stuff like that is sandpaper because it feels like business at usual. Just when we think the team is sucking it up for a rebuild, they start drumming about playoffs and being right back in the mix, complete with signing, safe, retread veterans.
 

HockeyinHD

Semi-retired former active poster.
Jun 18, 2006
11,972
28
But the teams above are champions because they picked high multiple times AND made savvy moves to put those players into positions to win. You can bet against the odds, it happens time to time, but the bundle of hardware being handed out to those rosters puts a spotlight on how important elite talent is and where you find it.

The problem is people conflate tanking with getting a 1 or 2 overall pick in a year that has a moderately generational player, which has the effect of ignoring all the teams who have a shotgun's blast worth of top picks spanning a decade plus to little actual effect on the franchise.

It's not just 'but Edmonton' and 'but Phoenix'. It's 'but Columbus' (1, 4, 8, 6, 6, 7, 6, 4, 2, 8, 3). It's 'but Nashville' (2, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 4). It's 'but the Islanders' (2, 6, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7, 1, 5, 5, 4, 5). It's 'but the Senators' (2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 6, 4). It's 'but the Flyers' (4, 6, 7, 4, 2, 8, 2). It's 'but San Jose' (2, 3, 2, 6, 2, 2, 3, 6, 8). It's 'but Toronto' (4, 1, 6, 7, 6, 3, 8, 5, 7, 5, 8, 4, 1). Vancouver, Winnipeg, Buffalo, yadda yadda yadda.

Further, when pretty much every team except Detroit has taken a turn in the competitive dunk tank this generation it stands to reason that every team except Detroit that wins a Cup will have made a top 5 pick (or two, or a dozen) within their competitive window. It's a statistical misnomer to claim there's a correlation because I'm pretty sure that almost every team in the NHL has made a top 5 pick since Detroit last had one (who still hasn't had one for 30 years), so anyone who wins a Cup will ring that bell.

The difference, obviously, is that some teams made a top 5 pick that worked, which is a wholly different thing. They also made trades that worked. And picks later in drafts that worked. And FA signings that worked. Also, they made all of those types of moves that didn't work.

So, that touches on the hockey side of whether a tank is sound strategy. The business case against it is so obvious it doesn't even require an explanation.
 

Lampedampe

Registered User
Feb 26, 2015
2,132
748
You could tell that veterans like Z and Kronner took all the losses really hard by just watching the games. Z leaving would truly be the end of an era, sad to think about it.

I don't even want to get into all the rebuilding stuff, but Holland's goal as this article describes sounds absolutely insane. There's no difference between finishing between 20-25 than to finish in the bottom 3, in terms of losing mentality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oddbob

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,764
10,302
Buffalo embraced tanking so much, that they have grown accustomed to it and just accept it as normal, according to ROR and Chad Johnson and others.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,840
8,558
Cup winners since the Detroit Red Wings in 2008. Pittsburgh (Crosby, Fleury, Malkin), Chicago (Toews, Kane), Boston (Kessel - traded for Seguin), LA (Doughty, Schenn - traded for Richards), Washington (Ovechkin, Backstrom). In brackets are their top 5 picks (that I remember). And you'll notice quite a few #1 and 2 overalls in there.

Of the group, only Boston evades being a product of a healthy losing streak. Of course, Boston is the only one on the list other than Washington with a single Cup. Pittsburgh and Chicago both claimed 3, with LA getting 2.

So look, I get the pride of not tanking. I get the rhetoric that it's bad for morale and look at Edmonton and Phoenix. But the teams above are champions because they picked high multiple times AND made savvy moves to put those players into positions to win. You can bet against the odds, it happens time to time, but the bundle of hardware being handed out to those rosters puts a spotlight on how important elite talent is and where you find it.
For Boston, add in trading for Nathan Horton, who was taken #3 overall by Florida. Before he lost his mind in Edmonton, Chiarelli worked the trade market like nobody else:

https://thehockeywriters.com/peter-chiarellis-top-5-trades-as-bostons-general-manager/
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,764
10,302
Hank's future meaning what exactly?

With 3 more seasons under contract - is he looking to retire from the NHL at the end of this summer, or possibly after the 2018/2019 season?

As far as AA goes - if Holland can find a buyer why not move him?

Well the recent rumours are he might be retiring right now, as maybe he is in more discomfort than he has let on, maybe he doesn't want to go through all the workouts and media interviews for yet another losing season. Maybe he has been enjoying his downtime and has changed his mind since April.
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,764
10,302
For Boston, add in trading for Nathan Horton, who was taken #3 overall by Florida. Before he lost his mind in Edmonton, Chiarelli worked the trade market like nobody else:

https://thehockeywriters.com/peter-chiarellis-top-5-trades-as-bostons-general-manager/

I always feel like the Pens, should be included with an asterisk in these kind of discussions, as they got a legit generational talent in Crosby, for free and luck in the lottery, when they were on the brink of bankruptcy, and then got another well above #1 guy in Malkin right after. With two players like that, they should have at least the Cups they won. We get flak from other teams fans, because Datsyuk and Zetterberg only helped us to 1 Cup with both of them in their primes, and they were 6 and 7 round picks that turned awesome.

Most years, the #1 pick is Yakupov, RNH etc. quality, and not Crosby, McDavid, Matthews etc. Point being, lets say the Pens only got 1 or the other, betweem Crosby and Malkin, there very easily could be 3 more teams with Cup wins, and the over-touting of every team needs to have a 1st overall to win theory looks worse. To me the Oilers shoot everything out of the water anyways, as they have had every teams share of 1st round overall and very similar level picks, and had they not lucked into McDavid, they would look worse for the future than we do, a team with only 2 Top 10 picks in nearly 30 years. Even now, they missed by a lot last season on the playoffs, and they have yet to fix their blueline, and address their lack of speed issues.

I would much rather do, what we have been doing, stockpiling fairly high 1st rounders and 2nd rounders while still pushing for something other than being crappy on purpose, as the reality is, we likely finish low trying this year anyways, and when we do get back on track, it will much more satisfying for everyone, knowing we didn't have to just play crappy on purpose.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,840
8,558
The problem is people conflate tanking with getting a 1 or 2 overall pick in a year that has a moderately generational player, which has the effect of ignoring all the teams who have a shotgun's blast worth of top picks spanning a decade plus to little actual effect on the franchise.

It's not just 'but Edmonton' and 'but Phoenix'. It's 'but Columbus' (1, 4, 8, 6, 6, 7, 6, 4, 2, 8, 3). It's 'but Nashville' (2, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 4). It's 'but the Islanders' (2, 6, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7, 1, 5, 5, 4, 5). It's 'but the Senators' (2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 6, 4). It's 'but the Flyers' (4, 6, 7, 4, 2, 8, 2). It's 'but San Jose' (2, 3, 2, 6, 2, 2, 3, 6, 8). It's 'but Toronto' (4, 1, 6, 7, 6, 3, 8, 5, 7, 5, 8, 4, 1). Vancouver, Winnipeg, Buffalo, yadda yadda yadda.

Further, when pretty much every team except Detroit has taken a turn in the competitive dunk tank this generation it stands to reason that every team except Detroit that wins a Cup will have made a top 5 pick (or two, or a dozen) within their competitive window. It's a statistical misnomer to claim there's a correlation because I'm pretty sure that almost every team in the NHL has made a top 5 pick since Detroit last had one (who still hasn't had one for 30 years), so anyone who wins a Cup will ring that bell.

The difference, obviously, is that some teams made a top 5 pick that worked, which is a wholly different thing. They also made trades that worked. And picks later in drafts that worked. And FA signings that worked. Also, they made all of those types of moves that didn't work.

So, that touches on the hockey side of whether a tank is sound strategy. The business case against it is so obvious it doesn't even require an explanation.
And all that makes sense on paper, if you have a front office who, through skill and luck, manages to use all those avenues with some measure of success.

But this one signs a lot of imprudent contracts. And overvalues its own players to the extent that hockey trades are between unlikely and impossible. And has less than average accumen for the evaluation and development of crucial roster positions.

So unless they somehow manage to have a "Zadina fall in their lap" type of move every year for a few more years...where is the collection of superb talent coming from, and how will it be managed shrewdly enough to put a run together down the line?

Assembling a contending roster is like juggling sand. Not only do you need to be good/lucky enough to hit on several pieces, but you're always fighting against time and regression. So a big part of why I'm "pro-tank" from a hockey perspective is that I don't think this management is competent enough to do it any other way than having a major cornerstone or two be handed to them at the top of the draft.
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,764
10,302
So unless they somehow manage to have a "Zadina fall in their lap" type of move every year for a few more years...where is the collection of superb talent coming from, and how will it be managed shrewdly enough to put a run together down the line?

Every team gets fall in lap players. The Leafs got Matthews, and Marner, the Sabres got Eichel the Oilers got McDavid, the Canes just got Svechnikov and the Flyers came from near playoffs to get Patrick. TB got Point, and the Islanders got Barzal. All teams need luck in one way or another to get top end players, so that is what we need, just like we got this year with Zadina. In this regard every team is in the same boat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waltdetroit
Jul 30, 2005
17,659
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
I feel like if you're nearly 38 and not sure if you're healthy enough to play, you should err on the side of good health and take your contract to Robidas island. Yeah, you might be able to get another year, but it's probably not going to be worth the physical cost long-term.
 
Last edited:

SCD

Registered User
Apr 8, 2018
1,607
1,037
So, that touches on the hockey side of whether a tank is sound strategy. The business case against it is so obvious it doesn't even require an explanation.

The salary cap has changed the landscape. The window to be competitive has diminished as young star players obtain more bargaining power as they age. Teams can only accumulate so many star players before hit the ceiling. Tampa is running into that problem now.

Toronto has made a huge gamble with Tavares. Mathews and Marner both are in their last year of intro contracts. There will be a huge push to win now before these young stars cause a cap crunch.

Not all teams are able to assemble the correct mix of assets to win the cup, but drafting a generational player has certainly been key for most cup winners in the past 20 years.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,734
14,704
Sweden
But this one signs a lot of imprudent contracts..
Disregarding everything else, this point feels like it's becoming outdated. Yeah Holland signed some ugly deals back when we were a playoff team. But the last few years? Basically all his FA deals have been minor, smart deals. Our cap situation is starting to clear up. More and more contracts are entering the stage where they become moveable.
His TDL deals have been on point. 10+ picks in 3 straight drafts. Got saddled with a dead cap hit of Datsyuk and turned it into Hronek while other teams pay to get rid of contracts like that. A struggling Tatar became 3 drafts picks, one of them Joe Veleno, another the 2nd round pick of the team that just lost their biggest star and risk finishing near the bottom next year.

What's not to like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: waltdetroit

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,753
4,569
Cleveland
Buffalo embraced tanking so much, that they have grown accustomed to it and just accept it as normal, according to ROR and Chad Johnson and others.

To be honest, a lot of that is on ROR, Chad Johnson, and others. And it's a good reason for Buffalo to have dealt ROR.
 

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
The problem is people conflate tanking with getting a 1 or 2 overall pick in a year that has a moderately generational player, which has the effect of ignoring all the teams who have a shotgun's blast worth of top picks spanning a decade plus to little actual effect on the franchise.

It's not just 'but Edmonton' and 'but Phoenix'. It's 'but Columbus' (1, 4, 8, 6, 6, 7, 6, 4, 2, 8, 3). It's 'but Nashville' (2, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 4). It's 'but the Islanders' (2, 6, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7, 1, 5, 5, 4, 5). It's 'but the Senators' (2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 6, 4). It's 'but the Flyers' (4, 6, 7, 4, 2, 8, 2). It's 'but San Jose' (2, 3, 2, 6, 2, 2, 3, 6, 8). It's 'but Toronto' (4, 1, 6, 7, 6, 3, 8, 5, 7, 5, 8, 4, 1). Vancouver, Winnipeg, Buffalo, yadda yadda yadda.

Further, when pretty much every team except Detroit has taken a turn in the competitive dunk tank this generation it stands to reason that every team except Detroit that wins a Cup will have made a top 5 pick (or two, or a dozen) within their competitive window. It's a statistical misnomer to claim there's a correlation because I'm pretty sure that almost every team in the NHL has made a top 5 pick since Detroit last had one (who still hasn't had one for 30 years), so anyone who wins a Cup will ring that bell.

The difference, obviously, is that some teams made a top 5 pick that worked, which is a wholly different thing. They also made trades that worked. And picks later in drafts that worked. And FA signings that worked. Also, they made all of those types of moves that didn't work.

So, that touches on the hockey side of whether a tank is sound strategy. The business case against it is so obvious it doesn't even require an explanation.

Stop using logic! Spot on. I've been saying this for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->