Jump to content

lordstanley

2016 Offseason Thread

Recommended Posts

I would expect the captain of the team and the coach to talk on a number of topics, including line combinations, player usage and the like.  Unless I have reason to believe it was a contentious discussion, and would operate under the assumption the Athanasiou comment was entirely appropriate.

 

Frankly, the bigger take-away I get from that is Z likes AA a lot more than Blashill does.  Enough so for Blashill to say what he did to put the matter to rest immediately.  I read that comment as a dismissive one of AA's value rather than a statement that Blashill wants Zetterberg to sit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RJBBREZ said:

What did he say that you liked?  What was any different from years past?  He is going to utilize the youth on the roster?  He says that garbage every year and then keeps guys like Cleary and Ericsson around.  I just have no faith in him anymore.  The team is in deep trouble going forward.

I liked that he was realistic.  Did Babcock go to Toronto and say they were going to win this year?  No.  He said this is going to take years, so be prepared and the fans are eating it up.   I don't think Holland articulated very well what he was trying to say.  But he's right.  You aren't going to win the Cup every year and I don't think the majority of fans in most NHL cities have an expectation of that.  I liked what he had to say about "tanking" it, because it's true.  Fans want to look at the 1 or 2 teams who caught lightning in a bottle, not the majority of teams who are perennial bottom feeders and are still in the "rebuild" mode. 

If you look at all the teams the Wings were competitive with the past 20 years, which of those teams have stayed an elite team?  Colorado?  Philly? Washington?  Carolina?  Dallas?  New Jersey?  Pittsburgh hasn't won in 7 years despite their stars being in their prime. Its been 9 years for the Ducks. St. Louis is good every year and haven't come close to a Cup.  Same with San Jose.  All the Canadian teams. The Rangers haven't won in over 23 years and after getting to a final seem to be on the downswing.  Boston won one cup 5 years ago and is now out of the playoffs in full rebuild mode.  Will Chicago and LA be competing for Cups 10 years from now? 

All those teams have all done what the fans want the Wings to do in one form another.  Tanking, getting high draft picks, big trades, big free agent signings, going with the youth, going with veterans, trading veterans for picks and prospects, firing coaches and GMs, to no avail.  But the prevailing wisdom seems to be that there's one secret formula to winning the Cup and Ken Holland is the only guy on the planet who doesn't know it.

I'm not opposed to a new GM.  But like with the coaching change, I don't think there will be some magic fix.  I think there's way too much loyalty to the veterans and young players aren't given an opportunity.  This extends to contracts as well.  Too many years and too much money for guys who don't deserve it.  It will be interesting to see what actually happens this summer. 

I find it funny that fans are mad he didn't say "We're going to try and sign Steven Stamkos" or "We're desperate to get rid of Datsyuk's contract, so we'll give up the farm".  I mean, what do you expect him to say?

The Tigers have done all the things fans want the Wings to do.  They've made big trades, they've signed big free agents, brought in younger guys, changed coaches, changed GMs. They're not really any closer to winning a World Series than they were 10 years ago. Fans aren't happy with them either.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard some people say that Holland is "tone deaf".  Fine. I want Holland to do the right thing, but  that may not necessarily be what sports radio, bloggers and message board posters want. Holland is smart enough to realize that you can't win trying to pander to that most vocal of minorities.  Social media will get on Holland if he says he "likes our team", they'll get on him if he says it's not realistic to expect a Stanley Cup. They'd have got on him at last year's trade deadline when the Wings were sitting 5th overall if he had done nothing, saying he squandered Zetterberg and Datsyuk's last chance for a long run. They got him instead for picking up Cole and Zidlicky, addressing two of the Wings' needs at the time for little return. Holland and the Wings need to be able to look intothe eyes of the quieter but more influential stakeholders - season ticket holders, corporate suite owners, radio/tv advertisers- and convince them that the Wings are a good buy.

Now, I do think that too much of what Holland was saying yesterday sounded like excuses or rationalization. And his goal - whether realistic or not - should be to put the Wings in position to win the Cup. And discontent with Holland has this year spread beyond sports radio and social media. So yeah, he should want to be very active this offseason and if he doesn't relish that challenge he could step aside. The status quo should not be an option, nor should tweaks along the margin. But one only has to have read Blackhawks message boards last night, slamming Quenneville, Stan Bowman, Seabrook and Toews to realize that there's no pleasing some people. And again, Holland is right about not tanking. I'm thinking Jack Nicholson right now: "You want the tank? The tank? You CAN"T HANDLE THE TANK". Most of his critics would abandon the team well before the end of 5-7 years of missing the playoffs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the post-cap era, what evidence is there for teams that have had success re-tooling on the fly instead of tearing down and rebuilding? That is, have there been teams that have had aging superstars and successfully replaced them with other NHL-ready players as they go along and then not experience too much of a drop-off? I know the Wings from 2006-2009 could probably be counted in that successful re-tool group, having transitioned from the Yzerman to the Lidstrom/Datsyuk/Zetterberg era without a rebuild. But who else fits that category? The Rangers maybe? Vancouver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're at the point where its kind of do or die with your young guys. If Nyquist, Tatar, Mantha, AA and co. can't step into bigger, more productive roles next year, we are screwed. I want a top line defensemen, but other than that I wouldn't be looking at big moves. Try to dump some dead weight like Howard and Ericcson, maybe keep Quincey and tweak your lines and pairings a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mantha scored twice as the Griffins closed out their first-round series against Milwaukee with a 4-1 victory Tuesday. Mantha, 21, had three goals in the three-game series.

"His goals were goal scorers' goals," Wings general manager Ken Holland told the Free Press today. Holland was one of several Wings executives who attended the game. "Anthony has made great strides this year. He had a tough rookie year in the AHL -- part of that was injury, part of that was making the jump from juniors.

"He has used the adversity of his first year to bounce back. He had a real good season with Grand Rapids, got his feet wet in the NHL. We were hoping Grand Rapids would go on a run so he could get some experience."

Some positive words by Holland on Mantha. http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2016/04/27/detroit-red-wings-anthony-mantha/83593078/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

In the post-cap era, what evidence is there for teams that have had success re-tooling on the fly instead of tearing down and rebuilding? That is, have there been teams that have had aging superstars and successfully replaced them with other NHL-ready players as they go along and then not experience too much of a drop-off? I know the Wings from 2006-2009 could probably be counted in that successful re-tool group, having transitioned from the Yzerman to the Lidstrom/Datsyuk/Zetterberg era without a rebuild. But who else fits that category? The Rangers maybe? Vancouver?

I think you could make the case for San Jose and Washington. Both reached great heights in the standings, didn't achieve playoff success, dipped, changed their mix, and came back strong. Neither are perfect examples, as the jury is still out whether San Jose is all that great and Washington had Ovechkin as a constant throughout. But if the Wings were able to sign Stamkos as a Datsyuk replacement maybe that comparison isn't bad.

There is no one blueprint.  Where would the Blackhawks be if they had the #1 pick in 2006 and the #3 pick in 2007, instead of the other way around, and they had chosen Erik Johnson at #1 instead of Toews at #3 and they had chosen Kyle Turis at #3 instead of Patrick Kane at #1?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we didn't tank, but met in the middle and traded away a package of picks + prospects to a team drafting #2-3-4-5 overall and then took Jacob Chychrun? We still get a top young D-man for the future without having to tank.

Let's say Columbus was picking at #3 and the Wings and Jackets trade went down something like this . . .

Red Wings acquire: #3 overall pick + 4th round pick

Columbus acquires: #16 overall pick + 2nd + 2017 1st + one of Nyquist/Tatar/Athanasiou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I suggested trading up for Chychrun in another thread.

But another thought would be why trade up to 3. Defensemen are notoriously hard to predict on draft day. They develop later. So not certain that Chychrun will be best of crop, even though I'm partial to players who play for my hometown Sting.; How about the Wings identify who feel are the best 4-men in the draft, let the first 2 or 3 be drafted, then trade up before the last one or two are snagged. Might lower the asking price if you're only looking to move up to, say, #9 instead of #3. If I'm trading Nyquist or Tatar I want someone a little closer to being NHL-ready e.g, maybe  a defenseman drafted in the 1st round 2 years ago who has made reasonable progress.

There are 3 ways to build a team. Drafting, free agency, trading. Let's say for the last 5 years I give Holland a grade of B+ for drafting, C for free agency, D minus for trading. Obvious where there is room for improvement - trading. I'm not opposed to having traded Janmark and Jarnkrok, but I can agree with the argument that he could have traded them either earlier while their stock was higher or for younger talent rather than rentals.  He could have traded Sproul and Jensen when they still had value, now they don't That's why I wouldn't be opposed to trading AA now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory on Holland & Co. has been that 10-20 years ago nobody was scouting Europe like the Wings (New Jersey did to a far lesser degree) and they were able to find some gems that most of the teams didn't even know about and it's what separated the Wings from the pack.   Is it any wonder that from the mid 90s to mid 2000s Detroit and New Jersey were always Cup conetenders?     But then everyone else took notice of this and the Wings weren't so unique anymore.   With that card taken away and an old, unattractive city and arena, Holland found it hard to lure the big names here and got desperate and took big swings at the wrong targets just to land someone.       

The young guys are talented, but the Wings stay loyal to bad players way too much and don't admit the mistakes they make.   They needs size.  Yeah, it might seem cliche, but a couple of bigger, physical guys would create more room and more scoring chances for the Tatar and Nyquist type of player.   The team also needs to give up this idea that every forward needs to be a two-way player.   It's okay to have an offensive-only guy or two out there, as long as they are really good at it.       The defense is a mish-mash of have beens like Kronwall,  never wases like Ericsson and prospects that have never been really given a long-term look.   Stop this now.  Bring up your young defensemen and see what they've got.   Bringing up a guy for 3 games, playing him 6 minutes and sending him back does nothing.   They have a few guys that aren't really going to learn more playing at Grand Rapids.   Let them play, Let them make their NHL mistakes and learn.   I could accept that much more than watching vets like Ericcson and Kronwall make those same kind of mistakes.    And just turn Brendan Smith loose and let him play the way he needs to play,  he'll make mistakes, but he'll also make some great plays.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny won't move Howard. Howard is a veteran guy who has been on the team for a while now. We're stuck with Howard for the duration of Kenny's tenure as GM. This is a men's league and Howard is a man's goaltender. Mrazek is still only 24 years old, too young to be trusted by himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stars don't need another oldish, average goalie on a big contract. They have two of those already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who is worth keeping amoung our defensemen and what level pairing do you think they're capable of playing on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Nastradamus said:

So who is worth keeping amoung our defensemen and what level pairing do you think they're capable of playing on?

Green, Smith, Marchenko and Olluette are all worth keeping. Kronwall, Quincey and most especially Ericsson are all dead weight on the ice and towards the cap. Right now Marchenko is a clear 3rd liner, same goes with Olluette. If the coaching staff and front office would quit trying to make Brendan Smith something other than what he naturally is, which is an offensive minded d-man, I think he could be a decent 2nd line and power play guy. I get it, they want more actual defense out of the guy and want the turnovers cutback, but given the lack of scoring from this team, I think they need to just let him go out there and unleash his offensive prowess; unleashed, even if it is at the expense of cleaning up mistakes and overall play. Greener is the only guy left with 1st pairing potential. If you judge him solely on this past season, he falls short of that.

Kenny has done a terrible job filling the void left 4 years ago by Lidstrom and 5 years ago by Rafalski retiring. This team needs to find a way to get one or two top young defensemen. Looking at the options, I'm not so sure that Kenny would do any of them, given his almost parasitic attachment to veteran/roster players. Here are the options though. . .

Tank and draft someone highly rated like Jakob Chychrun (Not happening with Kenny on board and a new stadium opening)

Trade a mix of roster players, prospects and picks and draft someone like Chychrun (Kenny doesn't like to trade his own guys on the roster, so I doubt this method)

Trade a mix of forward prospects/draft picks for a d-man prospect (In a men's league such as the NHL, I could see Kenny doing this)

Draft a d-man and hope he's your guy (Probably the most likely scenario, which means we're waiting another 2-4 years before the kid cracks a roster, unless he's Larkin good)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. Just curious if there was something I was missing. Clearly one big major defender and one major scorer are needed. I don't think there's anything complicated there. Tough task to accomplish though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nastradamus said:

Cool. Just curious if there was something I was missing. Clearly one big major defender and one major scorer are needed. I don't think there's anything complicated there. Tough task to accomplish though. 

Sign Stamkos up front. Gives you the ability to trade away some offense like Tatar and AA to get Trouba at the back. Dump Ericsson. Scale back Kronwall's minutes. A defense with: a top 4 of Green-Trouba-Dekeyser-Kronwall and a bottom 3 of Smith-Marchenko-Oullett is starting to look OK.

And yes, draft defensemen. Maybe even trade up a half-dozen spots from #16 this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nastradamus said:

agreed all around. Can you get Stamkos though?

Unlikely, but not far-fetched. Worth making a big push for him, although he is not without risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lordstanley said:

Sign Stamkos up front. Gives you the ability to trade away some offense like Tatar and AA to get Trouba at the back. Dump Ericsson. Scale back Kronwall's minutes. A defense with: a top 4 of Green-Trouba-Dekeyser-Kronwall and a bottom 3 of Smith-Marchenko-Oullett is starting to look OK.

And yes, draft defensemen. Maybe even trade up a half-dozen spots from #16 this year.

What GM are we talking about again? Jim Nill or Ken Holland? If it's Kenny, then I doubt you see Ericsson or Tatar moved. Hyper-loyalty doesn't allow for such a thing. AA could be moved, but only for a veteran guy over 30-32. I could see Kenny trading AA plus for an Alex Edler, Andrej Sekera, veteran, but not for a young kid in his 20's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2016 at 4:29 PM, lordstanley said:

Unlikely, but not far-fetched. Worth making a big push for him, although he is not without risk.

If you get Stamkos aren't you almost forced to make a big trade for a marquee D-man at that point? I would argue that there is no point in trotting out this same, lackluster core of D-men with a marquee guy like Stamkos added to the roster. At that point, you're looking at overpaying in a trade, out of desperation, and giving up a lot of future assets for who knows what quality/level D-man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now