Jump to content

MAROTH4MVP

Redwings Trade deadline news

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

With the streak ending and it being a deeper draft next year, I am down with tanking next year. I wouldn't make any signing similar to Vanek's last year. Let the younger guys play in the NHL, see what you have.

Agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say though that I found that being the fan of a deadline seller really sucks. It had to be done, no doubt it was the right thing to do and I would have been irked otherwise. But let's realistically look st this decent haul of one 2nd, three 3rd and one 6th. Odds are that one will become a bona fide  NHLer like Brendan Smith, one will become a fringe NHLer like Jurco and the other three picks will be complete washouts. Woohoo!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is an elite talent st the top of next year's draft, then by all means tank. 

Otherwise, I wouldn't mind seeing them sign a couple guys to short term deals and hoping they can be good enough to trade at the next deadline for more picks. Sort of like what the Oakland A's seem to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there wasn't a standings-based draft in the cap era. The salary cap does enough to ensure a level playing field. There should be a better way to rebuild than having to suck on purpose for awhile. Not fair to teams and their ticket-paying fans. 

My idea would be that every 3 summers the draft order for the next 3 years is selected:

  • Every team knows going in that one of the years they'll have a top 10 pick, one time a middle 10 pick, and the other year a bottom 10 pick.
  • First draw is to decide which teams have a top 10 pick in Year 1, which teams have a middle 10 pick in Year 1, which teams have a bottom 10 pick in Year 1, which teams have a top 10 pick in Year 2 etc ...
  • Next draw is to determine their placement within the top 10, then within the middle 10, etc

Would only take a couple of hours tops. Could set up intriguing trade possibilities over the next couple of years. And with no incentive to lose games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that type of draft format before. I think it was in relation to the NBA and referred to as the wheel or something. Maybe it was a grantland proposal, but the idea was the same in that you know what your draft pick is going to be years in advance so their is no incentive to tank for pick position. 

I think some form of that is a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shelton said:

If there is an elite talent st the top of next year's draft, then by all means tank. 

Otherwise, I wouldn't mind seeing them sign a couple guys to short term deals and hoping they can be good enough to trade at the next deadline for more picks. Sort of like what the Oakland A's seem to do. 

I don't get the impression there's an elite Lebron or Matthews/McDavid/Crosby type talent for 2018. Maybe more like a real solid top 10 or so, and then probably deeper talent throughout the draft as a whole. But it's early yet and I'm by no means an expert either.

But from what I can tell, truly tanking for lottery odds seems misplaced. But I would be down with signing and then trading some vets for draft picks at the deadline again, if we are again out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shelton said:

Yeah. I admit to not having a great grasp on NHL salaries and the cap and all that, but there is an area between full tank and "rebuild on the fly" that I think they could hit. And if they can do that, the decent players that make some money and aren't dragging the team down with their play can be valuable as a bridge to next playoff team. 

I don't believe there is a gray area they can hit. If you get into that gray area then you become the Pistons. Never bad enough to get a top 3 pick and never good enough to win anything of note. I think the objective is to be as bad as you can and get as many top-3 lottery picks as you can over the next 4-5 years so you can get yourself a top line center or two, a couple of top pairing defensemen and a winger who can score. Trade off all your decent veteran assets and become the next Edmonton or Buffalo. If you have a good GM, one who knows what the **** they're doing in free agency, the rebuild won't take as long as it has in Edmonton or Toronto and you'll get better, quicker because you'll supplement your draft picks with quality signings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I don't believe there is a gray area they can hit. If you get into that gray area then you become the Pistons. Never bad enough to get a top 3 pick and never good enough to win anything of note. I think the objective is to be as bad as you can and get as many top-3 lottery picks as you can over the next 4-5 years so you can get yourself a top line center or two, a couple of top pairing defensemen and a winger who can score. Trade off all your decent veteran assets and become the next Edmonton or Buffalo. If you have a good GM, one who knows what the **** they're doing in free agency, the rebuild won't take as long as it has in Edmonton or Toronto and you'll get better, quicker because you'll supplement your draft picks with quality signings.

i'm getting old. i don't want 5 years of **** hockey. pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

i'm getting old. i don't want 5 years of **** hockey. pass.

We've already had 8 years of **** hockey.  I'm getting old and I'm willing to wait a few years for a proper rebuild to take place.  Short term pain, long term gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

We've already had 8 years of **** hockey.  I'm getting old and I'm willing to wait a few years for a proper rebuild to take place.  Short term pain, long term gain.

i've enjoyed much of the past 8 seasons. compare to the pistons artificially accelerated their decline and have been boring since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I don't believe there is a gray area they can hit. If you get into that gray area then you become the Pistons. Never bad enough to get a top 3 pick and never good enough to win anything of note. I think the objective is to be as bad as you can and get as many top-3 lottery picks as you can over the next 4-5 years so you can get yourself a top line center or two, a couple of top pairing defensemen and a winger who can score. Trade off all your decent veteran assets and become the next Edmonton or Buffalo. If you have a good GM, one who knows what the **** they're doing in free agency, the rebuild won't take as long as it has in Edmonton or Toronto and you'll get better, quicker because you'll supplement your draft picks with quality signings.

Uh, who do you expect to finance those 4-5 years of "as bad as you can"? Ticket sales, merchandise revenue and TV ratings will all plunge, not only compared to Cup years but also compared to playoff bubble years. You're asking the owners to take a tens of millions of dollars hit all for the still unlikely chance that after 5 years you'll be poised to become a perennial Cup contender. The majority of rebuilds end in failure. 

I'm just not going to write off the entire 2010-2017 era as crap hockey. Even those years have offered as much as excitement as have Washington, Vancouver and St. Louis during that period. Not to mention teams that were rebuilding then and are rebuilding now such as Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Arizona, Florida, NY Islanders, Calgary, Carolina, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Some might argue the Pistons were late in their accelerated decline, FWIW.

I'm okay with trading assets for draft picks and not signing long-term free agents. Tanking an entire season(s) for draft position is different, which the Pistons didn't try to go full Philly on, so not an exact comparison (nothing ever is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I don't believe there is a gray area they can hit. If you get into that gray area then you become the Pistons. Never bad enough to get a top 3 pick and never good enough to win anything of note. I think the objective is to be as bad as you can and get as many top-3 lottery picks as you can over the next 4-5 years so you can get yourself a top line center or two, a couple of top pairing defensemen and a winger who can score. Trade off all your decent veteran assets and become the next Edmonton or Buffalo. If you have a good GM, one who knows what the **** they're doing in free agency, the rebuild won't take as long as it has in Edmonton or Toronto and you'll get better, quicker because you'll supplement your draft picks with quality signings.

IDK Tater, there are 20 guys across 4 lines on a hockey team - the best player in the league isn't nearly as much a ticket to anything in the NHL as it is the NBA. Sure having an Yzerman makes it a lot easier, but I think you can build a Stanley Cup winner without getting a number one pick if you draft consistently well - esp at goal and the blue line where your chosen players actually have the most impact as they play more of each game. 

My take is the Wings let their domestic talent scouting system atrophy because they were clever enough to find outside sources to exploit before the rest of the league caught up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Uh, who do you expect to finance those 4-5 years of "as bad as you can"? Ticket sales, merchandise revenue and TV ratings will all plunge, not only compared to Cup years but also compared to playoff bubble years. You're asking the owners to take a tens of millions of dollars hit all for the still unlikely chance that after 5 years you'll be poised to become a perennial Cup contender. The majority of rebuilds end in failure. 

I'm just not going to write off the entire 2010-2017 era as crap hockey. Even those years have offered as much as excitement as have Washington, Vancouver and St. Louis during that period. Not to mention teams that were rebuilding then and are rebuilding now such as Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Arizona, Florida, NY Islanders, Calgary, Carolina, etc.

Yeah, there's no guarantee that tanking wins you a cup or builds you a dynasty. If there was, I'd say lose all the games.

There's huge risk to it--if you put on a crap product and there's no payoff for it, your franchise, your brand is toast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

IDK Tater, there are 20 guys across 4 lines on a hockey team - the best player in the league isn't nearly as much a ticket to anything in the NHL as it is the NBA. Sure having an Yzerman makes it a lot easier, but I think you can build a Stanley Cup winner without getting a number one pick if you draft consistently well - esp at goal and the blue line where your chosen players actually have the most impact as they play more of each game. 

I just looked that draft up--Yzerman was #4 overall. In the 2nd round, Claude Lemiux was picked right after the Wings.

The Wings also took Petr Klima, Bob Probert, Joey Kocur, and Stu Grimson (!) in that draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Uh, who do you expect to finance those 4-5 years of "as bad as you can"? Ticket sales, merchandise revenue and TV ratings will all plunge, not only compared to Cup years but also compared to playoff bubble years. You're asking the owners to take a tens of millions of dollars hit all for the still unlikely chance that after 5 years you'll be poised to become a perennial Cup contender. The majority of rebuilds end in failure. 

And who is going to finance the era when the team is sub-.500 and no one is showing up to the games nor buying Nyquist jerseys? Rebuilding worked out great for Chicago, Boston, LA and Pittsburgh. It has been fairly successful for Tampa Bay as well. Re-toolings on the fly, in a post-cap won't work because drafting is the way to getting the superstar and top-tier players you need to compete for Cups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

IDK Tater, there are 20 guys across 4 lines on a hockey team - the best player in the league isn't nearly as much a ticket to anything in the NHL as it is the NBA. Sure having an Yzerman makes it a lot easier, but I think you can build a Stanley Cup winner without getting a number one pick if you draft consistently well - esp at goal and the blue line where your chosen players actually have the most impact as they play more of each game. 

My take is the Wings let their domestic talent scouting system atrophy because they were clever enough to find outside sources to exploit before the rest of the league caught up.

If you don't get top pairing defensemen and a top line center, you aren't winning a cup. How else do you purpose we get those assets if not through top 3/top 5 draft picks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

If you don't get top pairing defensemen and a top line center, you aren't winning a cup. How else do you purpose we get those assets if not through top 3/top 5 draft picks?

your top center is on the ice for 20 minutes. In hockey I really think I'd rather have depth. I'm not saying you can win with bums, but you can make the playoffs and still get good players. Only 3 of the top ten +/- players in the NHL were taken in the top 12 of their drafts. It's like the Lions, it's missing on the picks you have that kills you.

Share this post


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

That was a great draft.  All those guys had a real career.

Sure was. Second only to arguably the greatest draft by any NHL team ever. 1989 Red Wings:

1st round, #11 overall - Mike Sillinger (1,049 NHL games)

2nd round, #32 overall - Robert Boughner (630 NHL games albeit 0 with the Red Wings)

3rd round, #53 overall - Lidstrom (HOFer, top 5 d-man all-time)

4th round, #74 - Fedorov (HOFer)

6th round, #116 - Dallas Drake (1,009 NHL games; Cup winner on '08 Wings)

11th round, #221 - Vladdy Konstantinov (All-Star)

https://www.nhl.com/news/1989-nhl-draft-defined-red-wings-for-decades/c-786408

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

That was a great draft.  All those guys had a real career.

Topped only by the Lapointe. Lidstrom.Fedorov.etc 

Share this post


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

And who is going to finance the era when the team is sub-.500 and no one is showing up to the games nor buying Nyquist jerseys? Rebuilding worked out great for Chicago, Boston, LA and Pittsburgh. It has been fairly successful for Tampa Bay as well. Re-toolings on the fly, in a post-cap won't work because drafting is the way to getting the superstar and top-tier players you need to compete for Cups.

Well, Boston won a Cup and Los Angeles won 2 during the 2010-2016 period so you can't argue with that playoff success, but not sure they're models of how to build teams since their regular seasons performance during that time is comparable to the Wings:

Los Angeles

Intro: In the 15 years through 2009, the Kings missed the playoffs 11 of 15 times and won a grand total of 1 playoff series during that period (against the Wings in 2001). So let's see how they did the next 7 years compared to the Wings:

2010 - Kings came 3rd in Pacific with 101 points, knocked out in 1st round. Wings came 2nd in Central with 102 points, knocked out in 2nd round.

2011 - Kings came 4th in Pacific with 98 points, knocked out in 1st round. Wings came 1st in Central with 104 points, knocked out in 2nd round.

2012 - Kings came 3rd in Pacific with 95 points, won Stanley Cup. Wings came 3rd in Central with 102 points, knocked out in 1st round.

2013 - Kings came 3rd in Pacific with 59 points, knocked out in 3rd round. Wings came 3rd in Central with 56 points, knocked out in 2nd round.

2014 - Kings came 3rd in Pacific with 100 points, won Stanley Cup. Wings came 4th in Central with 93 points, knocked out in 1st round.

2015 - Kings came 4th in Pacific with 95 points, missed playoffs. Wings came 3rd in Atlantic with 100 points, knocked out in 1st round.

2016 - Kings came 2nd in Pacific with 102 points, knocked out in 1st round. Wings came 3rd in Atlantic with 93 points, knocked out in 1st round.

So the Wings finished ahead of the Kings in points 4 of those 7 years, including the year the Kings won their 1st Cup.

The Wings and Kings both have a cumulative total of 650 points over those 7 seasons.

Wings placed higher in their division than the Kings 3 times, the Kings placed higher 2 times, and had same division placing 2 times.

3 times the Wings went further in the playoffs than the Kings, 3 times the Kings went further than the Wings, 1 time they had the same playoff result. 

This season, the Wings are clearly out of the playoff position, but the Kings are clearly a bubble team only - they currently sit 1 point out of the playoffs.

Of course the Kings' 2 Cups are priceless. But it's kinduv like saying the SF Giants did a far superior job of building a team this past decade than the Tigers did - yes and no.

 

Share this post


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

I must say though that I found that being the fan of a deadline seller really sucks. It had to be done, no doubt it was the right thing to do and I would have been irked otherwise. But let's realistically look st this decent haul of one 2nd, three 3rd and one 6th. Odds are that one will become a bona fide  NHLer like Brendan Smith, one will become a fringe NHLer like Jurco and the other three picks will be complete washouts. Woohoo!

Agreed. The "big trades" Holland made are hardly reminiscent of DD 2015 with the Tigers. Holland is a day late and a dollar short and "selling" some cheap UFA's isn't going to lead to the rebuild.  The future does not look bright.  One aspect that hasn't been brought up is the horrid contracts that Holland has handcuffed the Wings with.  Most every team is trying to rid themselves of contracts, not take them on.  I hear all this talk of tanking but I don't really think the Wings have the assets to tank.  What they need are high draft picks and they don't really have anyone who will bring back that kind of return.  I don't think any of the vets are worth anything and don't have contracts expiring soon enough.  The European pipeline that produced so many HOFers has run dry.  The scouting staff can't seem to find a top 4 defenseman or any top line players of late.  A top to bottom housecleaning is the only way to bring back some enthusiasm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...