Buppy

The thing is, we're already paying a lot for Pav and Hank. If we have to go out and get an expensive sniper for each of them in order to score goals, we'll have to hope for bargains from the rest of the roster. And how long before their playmaking starts to fade as well? That's why I think it would be a waste of resources to try building around them again. We're not in an advantagous position for it, and our window is very narrow if it even exists at all.

Wings fans gripe because they don't follow other teams close enough realize that every team has injuries. In the last four years, we are 11th in man-games lost. And that's with two bad years. Cola may be "injury-prone", but he's averaged over 67 games the past four years. A bit over 80% of his team's games. Bert's averaged 75, over 90% (78 and 95% in his 3 years with the Wings). Sammy 71, over 85%. To suggest that Holland should have predicted that any, much less all three, would miss almost the entire year is foolish. More to the point, none of those guys prevented us from signing anyone better. Cola was signed precisely because we couldn't find anyone better. Bert and Sammy were affordable depth scorers, and they're short-term deals. We could have (and tried) signed even Parise and Suter. Would have meant some players would have been cut loose, but the fact that we did try to get them makes it obvious that we would have done so. Neither cap space nor roster space was a factor in who we did or didn't sign. Trying to build a contender around a pair of older, highly-paid centers who can't score goals and aren't good enough to make stars out of average players, while having a huge question mark for a defense, without the benefit of cheap, young, proven, talent, with next to nothing on the UFA market... not as easy as it sounds. Building one to last is even harder yet.

I agree. This is mountains out of mole hills. Though I wouldn't pencil him in just yet. Babs seems to prefer Gus, so I think he has a better shot even though he's still exempt next year. There's not all that much room on the roster. I think he's a prime trade candidate. I'd say his chances of being on the team next year is maybe 75% at most.

Overachieving?

Depth really isn't the problem, considering two of our depth scorers have missed most of the season, and even Helm can generate some offense. The bigger issue is that our top goal scorers aren't top goal scorers. Zetterberg, Franzen, and Flip should have around 10 more goals than they do. A healthy Bert, Helm, and Sammy probably adds another 10. That would put us up near 3 gpg even without any big snipers.

Jupiter is just silly. It doesn't even have a surface. Europa is a much better idea, since it's already made of ice.

They can play good hockey inside. It'd make a nice game of the week for NBC. Much of the appeal of the WC comes from the novelty. Novelty that is eroded with over-exposure. Then you have Pittsburgh in a 3rd outdoor game, Rangers in their 2nd and 3rd, Chicago and Detroit both in a second, Philly's already had two... While it's understandable to want the biggest ratings draws in an event like this, and it's nice that some new teams will be featured, they shouldn't do it all in one season.

Temperature at puck drop was 85. It can be done, just takes a lot more refrigeration.

There was a preseason game in Vegas back in '91. If they can make ice in September in the middle of the desert, LA in January should be easy. That's the one game that seems like a decent idea. Though it would have been much better to make it the WC in 2015. I predict that by 2018, Pittsburgh will play their entire schedule outdoors.

I apologize if that came off more offensive or argumentative than I intended. I was aiming for facetious. Sorry. But there seems a clear double-standard when it comes to judging Holland and other GMs. We have almost identical records, but for them it's "playing well". Start with a centerpiece like Nash, add 6 years and several high 1st-round picks, and still only be at the, "hey, maybe we'll make the playoffs" stage... It's not good. Maybe he deserves some credit for the slight improvement, but he also deserves a much larger serving of blame for not being even better. I have a hard time believing that you'd extend the same kindness to Holland if we had missed the playoffs 4 out of 5 years, likely to become 5 in 6.

Odd that he deserves "credit" for taking over a bad team, and in 5 years they managed to do as well as "mediocre" for one year (thanks mostly to a great rookie season from a goalie he didn't draft) before turning back into a pumpkin for a few more years, and now in the 6th year again reaching mediocre (thanks mostly to a goalie performing better than probably should have been expected). Meanwhile, you wish you had a time machine so you could kill Kenny's mother before his birth because he doesn't know how to stop players from aging...

You're assuming both that management is complacent and that missing would light a fire. The choice is basically "Likely 13th or 14th with a very small chance at 1st overall" or "Likely 15th or 16th with a very small chance at a Cup, with the added benefit or more games to watch and continuing one of the best streaks in all of sports". Missing isn't worth what would most likely be no more than a couple spots. Now, missing the playoffs or losing in the 2nd round (or even 3rd) is a little tougher. Losing in the Finals always sucks at the time, but gets better after while, so I think that'd be worth dropping 15 spots.

And in that same time, we lost Hudler (for a year) and Sammy, and more importantly Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Rafalski, and Lidstrom all in decline. (Most notably Hank's goal production.) Plus losing a handful of role-players. Most everyone else stayed around the same level. And while we may have been less competetive, there were points in each of the last three years when we were either at or near the top of the league or at least playing like one of the best teams in the league for an extended period. Again, the decline should be expected. It's been a fairly slow decline, and will probably continue for a few more years. Avoiding it should be considered remarkable, not the expectation. Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Boston have combined for 1 series win in 7 tries since they won their Cups. Wings have 5 in 9. 2 in 5 if you take out '09. All of them still have almost all their key players, and almost all of them have been improving. Prior to this year, none of them have been notably better than us in the regular season. By the same standard you use for Holland, they have all declined just as much, only much quicker and with far less reason. That they have rebounded so quickly should be tempered by the notion that they probably shouldn't have dropped as quickly (or at all) in the first place. Maybe that points to something they did wrong in originally building their teams, or something Kenny did right. Maybe when judging a GM, you need to look at the big picture rather than just the recent headlines. Maybe you need to have some realistic expectations rather than basing your criticisms on suppositions and hypotheticals. A realistic rebuild is probably 4 years to go from bad to contender. Maybe a few more years to tweak from there. We have not yet been "bad". How long you should stay a contender is debatable. I'd say anything over a decade is probably more than you should expect. There shouldn't be any expectation of rebuilding a contender into another contender without ever hitting "bad", since it almost never happens. We have a chance to do it (again). Maybe, probably even, it won't work. But I don't mind a few mediocre seasons while we try.

What puts him above other GMs is the 14 straight years 7th or higher in points, 9th or higher in the standings. 10 of those years (Including 9 straight) 3rd overall or better. None of Chicago, Pittsburgh, or Boston have managed to finish top-3 even two years in a row, and that's with their best players still improving. That we have struggled to replace some top players and valuable role-players while more of our best players are in decline shouldn't drop him below other GMs. This decline (or even worse) is what should've been expected. Avoiding it would have been remarkable. More than that even, since we already retooled the team twice without any real drop-off. Three times in a row without a glitch would have been near miraculous. Instead, that's what most of you expect.

Actually, if the question is "Who is the best GM in the league?", it does. Even if you think he does suck, if all the other GMs suck more then Holland is still the best. Hossa hasn't hit 30g since he left. In the 4 years he's been with Chicago, he's scored a grand total of 17 more goals than Franzen. Combined with the playoffs, just 13 more. 3-4 more goals a season wouldn't solve anything. The difference is not what it's made out to be. We do have enough prospects that we could afford to move a couple, but it's not that simple. There's two sides to a trade. There has to be another team that has something we want and likes what we have to offer more than they like any other offers they get. Beyond that, which prospects do you move? We have a lot, but most still need to prove they can play in the NHL. Not all of them will. Of all our prospects, if even half of them become regular NHL players it will be a success. We could trade away a couple and see them turn out to be the "good ones" of the bunch, while we get a guy who probably doesn't make much difference now and even less in the future. Add some high-priced sniper and we have to let Flip go (or even include him in the trade), Pav and Hank will still be aging, and we'd have fewer prospects and thus a lower chance of one of them being able to step in and contribute. I'm not saying a trade would be terrible, or couldn't work out. Just that you can't assume that a trade is always available and that it will work out the way you hope.

So who would be the best? There isn't a GM in the league that has faced the kind of losses we have and done any better at staying competetive. Most haven't been around long enough to try rebuilding on the fly and/or never even built a team successful enough in the first place.

I'd be very surprised to see Jarnkrok on the roster next year, and I wouldn't make any large bets regarding Nyquist and Tatar. I don't think we'll see any buyouts, though I wouldn't be shocked either. I think we'll look for a trade at the draft, but it would have to be good one. I don't think Kenny is particularly desperate. There are no good UFAs on D, so I think with all our young guys and the injuries we've had we'll keep Cola and go with 8 D. There's some decent forwards that aren't signed yet, but none so good that I think we really have to go after them. I think we bring Brunner back. Flip a maybe, depending on what the UFA market looks like at the draft and whether or not we make any trades. If we resign Flip or a get a UFA to replace him, there's no room for Gus or Tots unless we make a trade or buy someone out. If we make a trade, I think there's a good chance one of them is involved, and whoever we get back would move ahead of whichever one stays. Both are still waiver exempt next year. If Sammy and Bert are healthy, I think they'll be back. If not, one of the kids will take their spot until they are. Long story short, I'd expect next year to look very much like this year.

We won't be too far off from the look of it. I believe Backman will be the only one left in Europe. We have a couple kids who have to go back to the CHL, and a few in college. Pretty much the entire Griffins roster next year could be made up of kids with NHL potential.

Flip had only played two seasons, so it does apply a little. However, $3M for a defensively responsible 3rd-line center who could put up ~40 points and step into a top-6 role was a fair price, even back when he signed. Last year he was one of the best bargains in the league. I think you're being a bit too liberal with that definition. By your definition, every player in the league is being paid for potential since you never know for sure how someone will perform. While most of the players you listed are making more than they have in the past, that should be expected in most cases given how the cap has gone up and that most are still in their prime years. None of them a paid all that much, or anything particularly out of line with what could reasonably be expected given their history. Your stats for White are off. He scored 38 in 09-10, and 26 in 10-11. 26, 21, and 26 his other 3 seasons. He's paid like a 4/5 tweener. He didn't have to match or exceed any career numbers to be worth what we paid. Quincey was paid like 3/4. Again, we didn't need him to put up career numbers to be worth it. The numbers he had in LA would have made him a bit of a bargain. The numbers he put up in his two healthy years in Colorado would have been fine. There was little reason to assume he wouldn't be able to do so. Cola was paid like a 4/5. 60 games and 20 points would have been fine. Again, no particular reason to think he couldn't have done that. Gus is paid like a backup goalie expected to be able to put at least some pressure on Howie. Given how he'd played in Toronto, that's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Tootoo I don't think is being paid for points. With the energy and grit he brings, 15-20 points would be fine for a full season, and that's below his career PPG numbers. Giving Sammy 2 years was maybe questionable, with the injury trouble he had last year. But he was still scoring at a 20g/40p+ pace last year. He's been good for .5 ppg+ pretty much every year post-lockout. He didn't need to score 30g or 50p to earn $3M. 15-20g, 35-40p would have earned his deal and would have been a reasonable expectation.

Nedomlel signed an ELC a few days ago, though it doesn't kick in until next season. He and Paterson are with GR on tryouts. Hadn't heard anything on Marchenko. Things could certainly be interesting in GR next year, adding Sproul, Ouellet, Nedomlel, and Marchenko on D, and Jarnkrok, Pulkkinen, Frk, and Tvrdon up front.

Actually, it would depnd on when they retire. If they were all to retire after 4 years, the cap penalty would be about $8M for a couple years, then around $5.7M for a year, and about $3M for the last year. The recapture penalties actually get worse the closer to the end of the deal the player is when they retire. A team is penalized for any season where the cap hit is lower than actual salary, but no benefit for any years where the cap hit is higher. A team then has to "pay back" the advantage penalty over however many years were left on the deal. If a player were to retire late enough in the deal, the cap hit could actually go up (though I'd assume at that point, a team would just bury a player rather than let them officially retire). If Kovalchuk were to retire with one year left on his deal, the cap penalty would be $27.3M.

Actually, that was in '09. In '08, Flip and Sammy were on the 2nd line with Franzen. Huds was on the 4th with Helm. Our third line was Cleary-Draper-Drake. And what is embarassing is this fanbase's inability to handle adversity. So, to hopefully avoid getting worse in the future we should be worse now? Getting worse would in fact help us bring in talent, via better draft position. We're not going to get worse and keep drafting in the middle. You don't build a team via trades or UFAs. Or at least, opportunities to do so are few and far between. You need a foundation to build on, and you use trades and UFAs to tweak from there. It's likely we won't find that foundation until after Pav and Hank can't carry us anymore. And yeah, we'd likely be a pretty bad team in that event. Not sure why that's so much worse than being a bad team now... But if we give up now, try to stock up on draft picks, it doesn't guarantee anything. At best, you maybe accelerate the rebuild by a year. But you lose the chance at maybe getting lucky again. Maybe someone in the system does break out and become our next star, or maybe we'll find some gem in the 20s, or maybe we'll see a bunch of our prospects all become pretty good and be like Boston with a ton of good players but no real stars. Maybe we will find a trade or UFA that can be a key piece. Maybe start rising back to the top without having to hit bottom or even lose the playoff streak. If not, we're not really any worse off than we would be by blowing up the team. To me, the chance of something special (however small) is worth a few years of mediocrity. Some people seem to think that if we don't fix everything now, we won't ever be able to. But the reality is that not fixing anything is a pretty good way to get the resources to fix everything. Breaking whatever you do have can work as well, but not so much better to be worth it, in my opinion.

You can get some slight cap relief burying players. Anything over $925,000 (I think...something in that range at least) still counts towards the cap. However, Bert and Sammy are both on 35+ contracts, so we take their full hit regardless of where (or even if) they play. Amnesty buyout is the only way to get rid of it. (Barring a trade that is.)

(I pared down the quoted post to try to keep the length manageable. I'm not trying to take anything out of context...) The "core" concept was mocked largely due to bitterness, and it was fans doing the mocking rather than management. However, I don't know that those doing the mocking were as wrong as you think. Remember, Chicago has had their struggles the last two years. They finished behind us in the standings both seasons and haven't won a playoff series since their Cup. And that's with their core players still improving while ours have been aging. They're doing well this year largely due to the contributions from the players they brought in to replace the depth they lost from their Cup team. And they could be facing another cap crunch next year, and then again in a couple more years when Toews and Kane are up for renewal. People make too much of both the "loyalty" and "over-ripen" philosophies. Typically, when we've signed older players, it's because they've made valuable contributions at a good price. Cleary was signed 5 years ago, he was a good role-player the first three years, and even this year he hasn't been nearly as bad as some think. Bert's been good up until this year. Sammy and Cola were only signed this year, and unfortunately they haven't played much. That's not "continually". That's one summer of moves, moves that we've typically had good success with, that all happened to fall flat due to injuries. If we gave $7.5M to one star, and that star got injured, we'd be in the same place. Besides that, there was one star forward available and we tried to sign him. Over-ripening isn't so much a philosophy as it has been an affordable luxury combined with a lack of really good prospects. None of Andersson, Tatar, Nyquist, or Lashoff have been great, or even particularly good really. Nor has Smith, for that matter. Andersson and Lashoff have exceeded expectations, but expectations were pretty much nothing so that's not saying much. A nice surprise, and that's it. It's not like we signed Quincey and Cola instead of Suter (or anyone else) because we didn't want to give Lashoff a shot, and we needed to save money. The same is true for the forwards. We had money to spend for a star, but none was available. Maybe we could have traded for one, but that's going to cost you. Say you trade Flip and Nyquist for a star forward... then it's nice to have options like Bert, Cleary, and Sammy. Don't have to rely on the kids, and if the kids do work out it gives you extra depth. We had plenty of cap space, and some decent trade flexibility. Nothing's happened yet, maybe nothing will happen, but it won't be because we're afraid of playing the kids or too attached to older guys. I think people aslo have a distorted view of how soon most prospects make it to the NHL. There's about 60 rookies who have played 15 or more games this year. About half of them are 23 or older (or at least will turn 23 this year), another 10 or so will be at least 22. Almost all the rest are high 1st-round picks. Fact is, the vast majority of prospects take 4-5 years before becoming regular players in the NHL. It's not just a Red Wings thing, it's everyone.

Bouwmeester maybe, but Murray and Regehr are just depth/PKers. White has value as a puck-mover and on the PP. Having a s***ty year, but he's shown in the past that he can be worth 25-30 points a year. 2nd-rounder isn't out of the question. That's what SJ paid for him a couple years ago, and he wasn't having a great season at that time either. His worth depends on who is looking for someone with his skills, and who else is available. I don't know if I'd say "easily", but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some playoff-bound team was willing to give up a 2nd.