Leaderboard

I would check stats again. Z, Nyquist and Green at tied for point lead, Z is leading in assists and Larkin is leading the team in goals. Premature panic. Mike Green was signed to be a scoring defenseman by the way. So him being high in points is actually a good thing.

Tanking for 8 years?? lol I don't even know what to say anymore...

The thing is, with the stockpiling of talent Holland has done over the last few years, this team could be a lottery team for 1 or 2years and be right back in the hunt. The depth is there, talent is there, we just lack that elite talent. Draft one or two guys in the top 10 (or even top 5), and the assets are there to make the moved needed to fix the defense. To sum things up, I'd be fully on board seeing the team suck for a shot at Nolan Patrick. If the streak ended in any of the last few years, I'd have been heartbroken. This season I just feel ready for it. As a fan, I am within a window where I am prepared for a basement season and a clean slate. This is because the alternative is to keep the streak going and be stuck in mediocrity for a bunch more years.

I agree, this one should be Mrazek starting. He tends to play well against them and I'm sure Tampa view him as a hard nut to crack, you want to get into their heads prior to puckdrop if you can.

AA hurry and heal up, we need you

The team just needs some solid defenseman

When there are only 3 teams out of 4 that fit your narrative, its too small of a sample size. If you make conclusions on those three teams, you could then theoretically argue anything these 3 teams had in common as imperative to winning a cup. Seguin wasn't actually acquired via trade, the pick was. My point was that Boston is not an example of a team winning a cup by tanking. Seguin was pretty insignificant, I watched that playoff run. In the 1st and 2nd round he did nothing, in the third round he had one game where he had a goal and an assist, then he had another game against TB where he got 4 points. Other then those two games, nothing. In the finals he got one assist. Seguin was not a major reason as to why the Bruins won the cup. This was a team that was built with low picks, trades, and UFA signings. Other then the trades part, this is a very comparable team to today's Wings as far as the way they were built.

I would go Mrazek. He typically plays better against TB, plus Howie did start quite a few in a row.

Really? Most teams do it right? I wont even bring up the joke that was the Oilers pre McDavid as you even mention that, but I have a hard time believing that most teams do it right. How many top picks over the last decade have teams like Arizona, Columbus, Carolina, Calgary, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Buffalo, Colorado, Dallas, Florida, Minny, NYI, Toronto etc. had and not done anything more then what the Wings have accomplished (post 2009). Have any of these teams even made the 3rd round in the last decade? Other then Arizona, I don't think so. Sure Dallas is doing well now (but not via top 5 picks), and Florida appears to be better, but none of these other teams have done anything of significance. My point stands, for every Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA out there, there are teams that have not only failed, but been bad for a long long time. Tanking generally fails. Also, saying that all the cup winners/losers have a top 5 pick on their roster is not exactly a super bold statement either. Most teams have a top 5 pick on their roster as over a 10 year period their are literally 50 of them in the league. Even we have a top 5 pick on our roster in Vanek.

Considering only 4 teams have won a cup since 2009, not exactly a bold statement to make. Obviously top picks were huge for Chicago & Pittsburgh and LA got a high pick in DD, but Boston pretty much did it without a top pick. They had Seguin but he wasn't a big contributor, and they got him from a dumb trade by the Leafs anyways, not tanking. Not to mention we did it in 2008, but I'm guessing you are going to say that is two far back.

First of all, I don't think anyone argued that we shouldn't take more than the past few games into account. If Howard was McCollum and came up and one a game, I don't think he'd get more starts over Mrazek. Howard was recently our workhorse and a very good goalie. Mrazek's great but hasn't proven to be consistent yet in his short time in the NHL. Those are some of the many other factors you would take into consideration. But playing the hot hand is pretty much coaching 101. Players who are playing well should be played. I can't really believe that needs to be argued. As for your account of the Osgood/Hasek situation that's not the way the record tells it all: (last 10 games of that season) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–08_Detroit_Red_Wings_season#Schedule_and_results March 16: Detroit 3 – 4 Columbus Hasek March 19: Columbus 1 – 3 Detroit Osgood March 20: Detroit 6 – 3 Nashville Hasek March 22: Detroit 4 – 1 Columbus Hasek March 25: Detroit 2 – 1 St. Louis Osgood March 28: St. Louis 4 – 3 Detroit Osgood March 30: Nashville 0 – 1 Detroit Hasek April 2: Detroit 2 – 6 Chicago Hasek April 3: Columbus 2 – 3 Detroit Hasek April 6: Chicago 1 - 4 Detroit Hasek If you're arguing that we chose Hasek because he was the hot hand, you'd have to ignore us getting blown out 6-2 in the 3rd last game. If we were just going with the hot hand, Osgood would have gotten the next game then. In those years - when we were clearly in the playoffs - I think we used to decide who was starting the playoffs early and give them the last 4-5 games to get ready. Both goalies were playing well. Hasek was injured in February and had worse numbers over the season. I think he got the nod because he was the established star. Or maybe because he was 3 and 1 in games against the Preds while Osgood went 2 and 2 vs the Preds that season. Either way, that is not "playing the hot hand." Then he struggled in the playoffs and we went with the other really good option. This past stretch, Mrazek struggled a bit, we road the other really good option. Now Howard struggled a bit (even if the goals weren't all his fault), let's give Mrazek a shot again. As it should be.

Given those two options, I think most (if not everyone) would pick option 2... the problem is, there's an option in between the two extremes...

We all line up outside of box-office for conference final game 6 tickets.

Could you imagine the fury that would be unleashed if the Wings were to finally miss the playoffs (by one point) only to get the overall top pick in the draft?

This is actually a good thing. Just missing the playoffs increases the chance of a top 3 pick.

He will be out at least this week if it's a sprain. He should be able to bike about now if it's a regular sprain, meaning he won't drop much when back.

Yes, I want to make the playoffs, again and again and again. Once you make it, you never know where it will take you. You can't win the cup if you don't make the playoffs.

I would not argue that. My argument is that a narrative has been created because of the Pens/Kings/Hawks. That narrative is that tanking = cup, and my point is that tanking usually equals a losing culture for a very long time. In some instances I think tanking is the right thing to do (ie. Leafs), but in others I don't (ie. Wings). I would rather we take the approach of re-building on the fly, however I wish our kids to vets ratio was leaning more on the kids then it currently is.

I'll be the first one to tell you that tanking is overrated, but IF they did decided to tank, these contracts would not be an issue. Helm can easily be traded, Abby can probably be traded, and Franzen is on LTIR so his contract is a moot point. I even think you could move Nielson if he waived his NMC which in the event of a tank job im sure he would. Either way, IF they did go this route and got lucky and picked the right players in 2017, 2018, and 2019 by the time these kids were due anything substantial cap wise, ready to contend and needed to be surrounded by others, all the other contracts you listed would be off the books anyways. Its not like a successful tank job takes only a couple years.

Tanking for Draft picks can sometimes be a gamble too. Look how long it took Edmonton to finally land some picks that actually worked out. There are only a few Dylan Larkin's. McDavids, and Tyler Halls that can come into the league as a rookie and contribute. With that, I am willing to miss the playoffs for a few years if I knew the organization was "Rebuilding". Like someone else mentioned, the talent is already in place, we just lack the elite talent. Perhaps a draft of an elite player isn't the answer, but maybe a trade for one might be a better option. Personally, I think the change needs to be made in the front office. If guys are playing in Grand Rapids for 4 to 5 years (mainly the defensemen) and cannot make their way into the league within that time frame and contribute, then perhaps the organization has an issue. Maybe I am wrong, but just my two cents.

What he said. You are essentially saying that tanking = cup which is just not true. I feel like a broken record, but for every Pittsburgh/Chicago/LA, there are probably another 10 that tanked and just continued to suck. The other issue i have with tanking, is if those lottery picks or even top 5 picks become flops, you are right back to where you started except you have even less and you have established a losing culture. Anyone here who is a Lions fan can attest to that. You are completely relying on a couple kids and are hoping they end up being the next Crosby/Ovie/McDavid, when fact of the matter is half of the top 5 picks do not become franchise guys. Also, if we were to dump a lot of our vets, I could still see us being a non lottery team.

The market determines a player's trade value, not the suckage of a team. With Holland as the GM, there will ALWAYS be another team willing to pay more.

then where the f*** are the wings going to end up lmao every loss wings get is just making the price for available defensemen go up up up

That year Osgood posted a .914 sv% to Hasek's .902, each with 40 starts. I would argue that Hasek never should have started in the first place, and only did so because he had a couple good games at the end of the regular season while Osgood had a couple poor games. I would also argue that Osgood was successful because he was an excellent goalie, and not because he was "hot". I might also point out that this "hot hand" logic would suggest that we should have gone back to Hasek after 3 straight somewhat weak games against Dallas. To repeat what I said earlier, "the determination of who is better needs to be a far more in-depth analysis than just looking at the results of their most recent few games". So what does tonight's game tell us? Is Howard no longer "hot" because he had one statistically poor game? Is Mrazek no longer "cold" because he stopped a few shots at the end of a blowout game? Who's going to be better next game?

Line combos for next game: 3rd line winger - 2nd line center - 2nd line winger 2nd line winger - 2nd line center - 3rd line winger 4th line winger - 4th line center - 3rd line winger AHL 2nd liner - 4th line center - AHL 2nd liner 3rd pair defenseman - 2nd pair defenseman 3rd pair defenseman - 2nd pair defenseman AHL 1st pair defenseman - AHL 1st pair defenseman