Leaderboard

Hard to argue this. Larkin is the far superior all around player, but Athanasiou is the better goal scorer in my opinion. Ideally Larkin is a 30 goal, 55 assist player, and Athanasiou a 35 goal, 30 assist player. Larkin currently has one more goal (27) in the same number of games (66), while averaging over 5 minutes more per game. Larkin plays against the oppositions best every night, but he's also played with better linemates all season, while AA is stuck with scrubs most nights. With Athanasiou finally getting more ice time, in a top six role, with better linemates, I think he'll finish ahead of Larkin for most goals on the season. Hopefully they both eclipse the 30 goal plateau.

Jack Hughes all the way man. He's guaranteed talent for the long haul it looks like. Plus the guy is named Jack. Who names their kid Jack anymore? It's not like its 1950 or something. What a throwback.

Nah, I don't think height matters as much in the modern NHL, but being THAT small will definitely scare a few teams away. He's basically the same size, and style of player as DeBrincat though. I think any team would be thrilled to get a DeBrincat in the top half of the first round.

Right. I guess that post was addressed more to Neo. You and I seem to be on the same page here. I mean, I get it. Lots of people say pretty stupid things in support of hardcore, take-no-prisoners tanking. Lots of people want to see everything burned to the ground. Lots of people think it's Hughes/Kakko or bust. I'm not down with that and I think Neo is right to call bulls*** there. But I submit that if you're posting on a forum like LGW.com on a daily basis, then you probably have a reasonably nuanced take on the whole "tanking" thing. You and I, for example, are firmly in favor of the approach Holland has taken, and it's not because we think "Being bad is the only way to get top talent." Rather, we think it's the best path forward. It doesn't guarantee anything. It has its inherent risks. But, personally, I think it's way more appealing than treading water indefinitely, which is what we did from about 2012 to about 2017. Getting Hughes or Kakko is the dream scenario, but even a guy like Byram or Cozens would be an enormous add and could end up generating a lot of excitement and being a worth-the-price-of-admission player. Eeeeeeeveryone hates our D situation. Byram would give us an honest-to-goodness elite D prospect who projects as a 1D. Eeeeeeeveryone wishes we could add a guy who's 6'3" and skates like the wind and plays a power game and is a natural born goal-scorer with a lethal shot. Cozens checks all of those boxes. Point is, we'll be getting an elite prospect with out first pick. And we'll be adding that prospect to the other very promising prospects we have in the system. And we'll have nine more picks after that first pick.

First round pick. Jack Hughes. Even the post dead wings era; when we drafted Yzerman with the 4th pick; its been said that it was an instant seller and caught the attention of many. Yzerman singlehandedly sold tickets and brought life to Red Wing hockey. Superstars sell tickets. They make everyone around them better and they win championships.

Well yeah, we're not tanking as in purposely losing games. But the bolded parts is basically the way of getting a high draft pick. Which is what people equate to modern day tank. Neo was of the opinion that we don't get rid of Nyquist for draft picks. That we keep the secondary guys around, and if we finish in the 20th place it would be more respectable than finishing last and build through that. I'm saying that's stupid. Pardon my bluntness.

The Wings aren't even really tanking, so this whole argument is sort of stupid. The team is bad and Holland has concluded there isn't anything he can do to dramatically change that in the here and now, so he's making the best of a bad situation. Making the best of a bad situation = transition years (younger guys stepping into bigger roles, some older guys getting phased out), trading some non-core pieces at the deadline, getting a lot of picks. It's a bad situation, but it's also sort of nice (albeit in a perverse way), as this organization desperately needs a major infusion of high-end young talent and it's exceedingly difficult to get that when you're doing everything in your power to make the playoffs every year. (Which is why we're in the situation we're in.) We're getting a big shot in the arm over two or three years instead of the painfully slow drip that we'd grown accustomed to, the painfully slow drip that would run indefinitely until we'd basically lucked into the two or three franchise players that we need in order to open up a legitimate, sustainable Cup window. Many people had grown tired of the slow drip. Many of these people think "tanking" is the way to go. We can debate semantics until we're blue in the face. At the end of the day, the reality is that the team is bad and Holland has changed his approach in an attempt to get the organization back to relevance in as short a time as possible. Thus far, Holland's approach has paid off pretty well; he's moved out a few players that were deemed expendable and he's managed to add a lot of high-end(ish) young talent in a relatively short span of time. Again, last year's draft basically got us four years' worth of 1st-round picks. We might be looking at a similar return in this year's draft. At the very least, this draft will be giving us one elite prospect, quite possibly the best prospect we've had in a very long time (even if it isn't Hughes or Kakko). I'm going to link to this piece again: Red Wings won't 'sit back' in attempt to rebuild [NHL.com] (October 25, 2018) When I say I'm fine with tanking and I claim that Holland is embracing the suck, what I basically mean is that I'm down with what Devellano and Cotsonika are saying in this piece. Highlights: Embrace the suck, but don't enjoy it. Hate every minute of it. And always have some form of an "IN CASE OF EMERGENCY BREAK GLASS" escape plan. Don't trust that 30 picks spread across three consecutive drafts will definitely get you to where you want to be. At the same time, recognize that this is an opportunity to set things right and put this organization "back in business" in a relatively short time. That's what I think the brass should be doing and that's what I think the brass *is* doing.

I know, I already argued this point previously that his first "Season" was spent playing 9 minutes on average and the year following was a little more. Last year was his first full actual year in a somewhat higher role. This would be the second in that continuing role and he's done well. Larkin is the better player overall. But goal scoring wise this question is legitimate for this year.

He's going to hit 53 while wearing Prophetic Skates of the Ox. +12 Vision +8 Strength Character Level 73 Required

And they tried from 2009 until last year and it didn't work out. As for the second bolded part. Sure it's "possible". But probability is low and we're trying to get good fast and now, and ain't nobody has time to continue wasting trying to hope to find a gem someone in a random draft position. We've been trying that for more than a decade and have had zero luck drafting a worthy player since Franzen/Kronwall pre 2000s. Specifically, if you've been paying attention to the last 20 years of our draft, we haven't had much luck trying to get high end players. Nyquist and Tatar were secondary players at best and nothing more. Not a 1D like Kronwall, not a top 3 winger like Franzen. So rather than clinging on to "possibility" like you say; Holland has moved his philosophy towards "probability". And it's a proven point that there's a higher probability of getting good players high in the draft. Period.

Sure. It's possible to get high end players without sucking, but it's also a lot less likely. We suck right now because for 2 and a half decades we weren't in position to draft high end talent, and weren't lucky enough to find it in later rounds (outside of Pav and Z).

They’re not deliberately tanking. They’re not pulling the players to the side and saying “ok we have to lose these games”. You’re trying to push a narrative that only exists in your head. The team sucks, plain and simple. They know they’ll end up somewhere high in the draft and hence they've stock piled their picks to use them in the draft at those high points each round. It's pretty simple.

Update: Had a good poop. Kronwall has, at most, a year left (and he's actually had a pretty good season). Nielsen and/or Abdelkader can be bought out when the time is right. Nielsen's a decent 3C. Ericsson has a year left. It's always been fashionable to hate on Ericsson, but he and his contract have always been harmless. Bad contract? Sure. Crippling contract? No. Do I think the fact that Holland gave Ericsson his contract means that it's only a matter of time before he hands out seven more contracts just like Ericsson's? No. I choose to believe Holland has learned from some of his missteps, Ericsson being one of them. Holland decided against bringing Nyquist back on a $5M(+) x 5 contract. Holland hasn't made any albatross UFA signings over the past couple of seasons (i.e. since the start of the rebuild). Holland has worked out some good RFA deals. Holland has pulled off some good trades. The "zomg cap hell" angle is overblown. The "zomg no room for kids" angle is overblown. The "zomg Holland signs terrible contracts" angle is overblown. The "zomg Holland doesn't know how to run a team in today's NHL" angle is overblown. That darn Abdelkader! Always sabotaging our rebuild efforts! *shakes fist angrily*

I think that's disingenuous. You're framing it as "People who are pro-tanking don't understand that you can get great players without tanking." Everyone understands that great players can be acquired without tanking. But I submit that everyone also understands the realities of the cap era and the desperate reality of the Wings' situation. What Holland is doing now is necessary. (And I don't think he has much of a choice anyway. The team is simply bad.) The Wings want to get back into the playoffs next season and get that juicy playoff revenue. They also want to get themselves the kind of young core that would allow for sustainable success, perennial contention, a long-lasting Cup window. Jack Hughes, Kaapo Kakko, Bowen Byram -- a player of this caliber would, in theory, help tremendously. The odds of finding one or two of that kind of player without multiple high picks spread out across several drafts...are not good. So, personally, I'm fine with tanking. I agree that too much of a bad thing is a very bad thing and that what we're seeing right now must not become the norm. But with Holland and Devellano at the helm, I don't feel like that's a serious concern. Arguably no two executives in this league have less patience for losing.

Straw man. You can find great players outside the 1st round. But let's not pretend that great teams/organizations of the cap era haven't benefited from high draft picks. Lightning Stamkos - 1st overall Hedman - 2nd overall Penguins Fleury - 1st overall Malkin - 2nd overall Crosby - 1st overall J. Staal - 2nd overall Blackhawks Toews - 3rd overall Kane - 1st overall Kings Kopitar - 11th overall Doughty - 2nd overall Capitals Ovechkin - 1st overall Backstrom - 4th overall The Wings tried to retool on the fly for a number of years. It didn't work. We did get some good organizational depth and Dylan Larkin out of it, though. Now we're hunting for bigger game, because we need it. And Devellano is on record saying he and Holland are naturally impatient and are willing to do outside-the-box things in attempt to speed up this rebuild if they're not satisfied with the state of things. So what's the problem? The Wings haven't established a losing culture, and what people say on internet forums has no bearing on the organization's culture. There's that straw man again.

Zadina is good.

Larkin. Basically a Toews-Kane thing.

*runs a thousand tankathon sims, as if that'll change anything*

Has it cost us a top target? Did we lose the Suter-Parise sweepstakes because we didn't have enough cap space? Did we lose the Stamkos sweepstakes because we didn't have enough cap space? Would we have had a shot at Tavares? If the most damning thing we can say about the bad contracts is that the money could've been spent on different players...that's not exactly a knockout blow to Holland's credibility. "Yo! Holland! You shoulda signed Matt Niskanen and Eric Staal! Idiot!" I mean, sure. Maybe he should've. But would it have really mattered? I'm busting your balls on this because all I hear from Wings fans these days is that Holland is a colossal failure who's brought shame upon this once-great franchise and that Yzerman is the one who must set things right. And so I'm pushing you for specifics, for things that will make my blood boil and make me hate Ken Holland. And what I seem to be getting from you is "Coulda spent that money on better players." I don't even disagree! The money absolutely could've been spent on better players. I just think there's a disconnect between the "Holland must go!" fervor and the crimes he stands accused of committing, and I think it's all a bit comical. The point is that we don't have a foundation. We have Larkin, and that's a start, but it's not nearly enough. The Wings are a victim of parity; in today's league you have to spend time at the bottom. There's no way around it. If you don't have a core group of outstanding young players, you're a dead franchise walking. That's the dark heart of parity. I say it's not a big deal because the Wings were always going to end up in this hole. It was an inevitability. I absolutely buy that Holland could've handled the post-Lidstrom limbo era better than he did. But, in the absence of young superstar talent (replacements for Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom), it ultimately didn't really matter what he did. The Cup window pretty much closed when Lidstrom left and the playoff streak ended when Datsyuk left, and now we're finally where parity dictates we must be: the basement. Now Holland has a chance to do something the "Playoffs or bust" mandate didn't allow him to do: build a contender "the right way." Get lots of draft picks, get lots of young talent, assemble a new core. He seems to have embraced the rebuild and, to me, he's done a pretty good with it thus far. Like I've said, I don't think Yzerman would be doing things much differently. I'd love to see Yzerman take over, but I'd hate to see the fans turn on him when he doesn't immediately produce a Stamkos and a Hedman and a Kucherov from a magic hat. Do they? Does it really matter? (I kid, I kid.)

For the record, I'd love to see Yzerman take over. And I do get why people are fed up with Holland. And I'm not saying people are necessarily "wrong" for wanting a big change. I just think the Holland hate is a bit much (and I say that as someone who has hated pretty hard on the man in the past), as is the lusting after GM Yzerman.

Name these players. I want a list of all the good players we surely would've signed or traded for were it not for the contracts in question. I also want a list of all the good RFAs we've been forced to lose to waivers and trades as a direct result of the contracts in question. Relevant, maybe. But is it actually damning? Does it actually matter? Is it alarming? I submit it's only "alarming" to people who want to be "alarmed" by Holland's actions. Does it matter? You're saying things as if it's self-evidently true that they're deeply problematic. I'm saying they're not deeply problematic. We're a bad team with a high payroll. Big whoop. Some old guys will be coming off the books over the next couple of years and we'll also be adding some great ELC kids and we'll be seeing the current young leaders maturing. The Wings aren't in cap hell. Wasn't too long ago that Datsyuk put us in a genuinely bad spot with the cap. Holland traded Datsyuk's contract and the 16th overall pick to Arizona in exchange for the picks he used to get Cholowski and Hronek. If Holland feels he has to do something drastic and out-of-character, he'll do it. Has he? Or is he a dime-a-dozen bottom-four stay-at-home defenseman (the kind every team has) who's been forced to play up in the lineup because of a lack of high-end talent? We can buy out one or both of them. I believe we haven't done so because there isn't a pressing need to do so. We're not sitting here staring at a Cup-worthy roster and saying, "Damn, if only we had a bit more cap space, then we could definitely add Erik Karlsson and we'd be set." We need an Aleksander Barkov. We need an Aaron Ekblad. The only way to get those players is by drafting them. So we wait. And we run out the clock on some contracts. And we see where we are at the end of every draft. The hope is that we get an instant gamechanger in the upcoming draft, specifically Hughes or Kakko. Though, even if we do, we're still probably at least a year away from getting back into the playoffs. That's just the nature of the beast. It's how rebuilds work. I would say you're moving the goalposts (you asked what promising prospects we have in the system, I named some), but I suspect you were always going to say, "Yeah, well, whatever. We'll see."

Everyone keeps pointing to our bad contracts. Are they what's holding us back? Does it really matter that we have bad contracts on the books when we don't have the pieces needed to open up a Cup window (i.e. elite young talent)? Ericsson has a year left. Green has a year left. Kronwall has a year left (assuming he doesn't retire in the offseason). Daley has a year left. DeKeyser's actually a pretty decent shutdown defenseman when he's healthy. I'd be more worried about Helm and Nielsen and Abdelkader and [insert anyone else] if I actually felt like they were holding us back from being a really competitive team. But I don't think that. I think what's really holding us back is a lack of high-end talent, mostly of the young, cost-controlled variety. How do we get that kind of talent? By sucking and stockpiling draft picks. Which is what we're doing. And is what Yzerman would be doing. Filip Larsson and Keith Petruzzelli are the headliners. Hronek, Cholowski, Jared McIsaac, Gustav Lindstrom. Hronek's quietly having a really good rookie season. Cholowski showed glimpses of top-pairing potential this season. McIsaac's been a revelation in the QMJHL this season. Lindstrom's an under-the-radar two-way workhorse. Bowen Byram is the consensus top defenseman in this year's draft class and there's a good chance he's going to be available when we make our first pick. The drafting has been fine for where we've drafted. And we've only had two tank drafts. Rome wasn't built in a day. This team's entire future is not banking on this upcoming draft and this upcoming UFA class. Realistically, it'll be at least one more year of pain and stockpiling picks before we have all the pieces we need.

Fans have been clamoring for a painful rebuild for years. Now that we're finally getting it, those same fans are complaining that the team is bad and Holland doesn't know what he's doing. Being terrible for a few years is how we get back to being good again. GM Yzerman didn't have to tank because the Bolts had already drafted Stamkos and Hedman (by being terrible). We don't have a Stamkos and we don't have a Hedman. Being in 30th place (at the moment) potentially puts us in a position to get a guy who could turn out to be as much of a gamechanger as Matthews has been for the Leafs. Speaking of the Leafs, they were in much the same boat before they got Matthews. Nylander was a good prospect but wasn't seen as a gamechanger. Marner was a good prospect but wasn't seen as a gamechanger. The team was bad and Nylander and Marner were held off the Leafs roster for most of the Matthews Tank Season because being a Leaf was such a miserable experience that season. Then they got Matthews.

Yeah then how did he become assistant to the regional manager smart guy?

Yep, that sounds about right. Just remembered krsmith was at this game.