kliq

Coffey was not "toast" in 1995, he won the Norris that year. Talk about revisionist history. The guy may have had shortcomings, but you are going way over the top with your assessment. The fact that we didnt draft Ward just add's to my point. It's not about drafting top 5, its about acquiring talent. I couldn't care less where a player is drafted if he is a contributor. Sure being drafted top 5 increases your probability of becoming a start, but its by no means any guarantee. If it were, teams like the one's I mentioned earlier would be elite by now. Either way, its pointless going back to the 90's as a comparison. If Holland had no salary cap now, and more funds then most, I guarantee that our team would be better. Its apples and oranges. Trading for guys that were top 5 picks 6-15 years prior to a cup win is not an argument for tanking. I feel like you are trying to create an argument where your point is that to win a cup, you need talent on your team. I dont think anyone would argue this, so I am not sure why you are making it. Here is a question, and I honestly dont know the answer as I dont have the time right now to look it up. How many top 5 picks did our 2008 cup winning team have on it? That is probably the most recent cup winning "re-build on the fly" team other then maybe Boston. I'll give you credit Lefty, you hated the Helm contract but when Helm was playing well at the beginning of the season, you gave him his due. Some posters, when things don't go as bad as they predict, they just lurk in the shadows and wait for a losing streak to post again.

Agreed. I would much rather see a guy like Bertuzzi on the 4th line permanently then Ott. When he was signed, my hope of him was healthy scratch that would only come in when there was a last minute injury.

Sorry but I don't buy it. If one reporter said it about one team, sure I could see it. But we are talking pretty much every reporter, and they were all saying that Helm had offers from a variety of teams. Not to mention, on July 1st these guys were pretty much bang on with everything they said. I get it, you will never saying anything positive about the Helm or Abby contracts and everything you say about them will have a cynical/negative tone. There is no need to continue this conversation we have had 50 times since July 1st.

No. I am not saying that anyone who has not been a boss is unqualified to have an opinion, that is not my point at all. My point is that people from the outside looking in, don't see the entire picture and more often then not form very strong opinions about a subject without having all the info. While sometimes they may be qualified, have a high IQ etc. they just don't have all the info needed to understand the decision that has been made. I'm not going to read off my resume to you, it's pointless. My intent with my post is not so others will think highly of me, that's not the type of person I am. My point was to put a point out there. Clearly I offended you, there is no need to take my comments so personally. If you accomplished all those things you said, in all sincerity that's awesome. Though your comments surprise me as with that perspective, I feel you should understand exactly where I am coming from. I am sure over the years you have had at least one employee question decisions you have made and implied (maybe not to you) that they know better. However if they had a conversation with you about it and heard everything you based your decision on, would likely change their mind. I have found through the years in working with employees, that they typically have a one dimensional way of looking at things. Is this indicative of their intelligence...no. Does this mean they should shut-up and not speak...of course not. The best analogy I can give, is its like they are trying to put a puzzle together, but you give them half the pieces. It doesn't matter how smart or hard working they are, they just don't have all the info. My post wasn't about defending Blashill, it was about how we don't know as much as we think we do about the inter working of the Wings. Are decisions by Blashill being forced on him by Holland? Are there advanced stats he's looking at that we don't have the ability to see? When someone is benched, were they dogging it in practice? Are Hollands decisions forced on him by ownership? These are just a few of many. I hope you are able see my point.

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but I am not arguing that we still are the best at drafting overseas talent in the league. Clearly the rest of the league caught up.

So essentially we drafted 4 players top 10 (Yzerman, LaPointe, Ward, Primeau) and of those four, two (if you count Primeau as Shanny though dont forget Coffey was involved in that trade) were major parts of our cup wins. Everyone else and the majority were late round picks which kind of goes against your narrative. You can't count Murphy as a high pick, we traded for him. That would be like counting Vanek as a high pick now. I agree with you that it took years to develop as a team, but that is really no different then what the Wings are doing now as far as homegrown talent growing and maturing together goes, the big difference is that our players back then were much better. The major reason why they were better, because our foreign scouting was the best in the NHL by a mile. You can say the 1997 and 1998 cups were due to "re-building", I believe they were due to our ability to draft amazing players in the late rounds. Something that would have been done regardless of how bad we were at any particular time.

I agree with that first line (N-H-M) its essentially the same line from earlier in the season that played very well except you are replacing Vanek with Mantha. I admit there are not giant upgrades over Glendening, but I would prefer Bertuzzi or Sheahan. Too bad Jurco is still out, I would love to see what he could do at this stage in a top 6 role.

I don't buy the whole conspiracy angle. Why would so many journalists lie, we are not talking bloggers here, we are talking tsn guys. I guess its easier to cry conspiracy then to admit you may have been wrong.

Frank....all krsmith said was that there were better options at 2nd line wing then Glendenning, which there are. There was NOTHING said about hidden gems, nothing said about Zetterberg retiring, nothing said about Holland, nothing said about rebuilding.

As of right now yes, they are 2 points out. 2 days ago they were in 3rd place. It literally switches each day.

I dont think this fan base could handle a complete tank job and re-build to be honest. If Holland did do that I think that fans would call for his head even worse then now. The perfect example is back in June. I cant tell you how many posters, radio callers, people I spoke to were saying that if Holland didn't trade Datsyuk's contract he deserved to be fired. What those statements alone told me is that people wanted to Wings to re-tool for for 2016/17. The thought of keeping his cap-hit even if it meant sacrificing the future was something most fans wanted.

Ya I'm pretty much on the same page, except I thought we would squeak in. At the end of the day what you are predicting and what I am predicting are probably a difference of 2-4 points.

I think its fair to say the same applies to Holland. After what happened to Dave Dombrowski I think its pretty clear what Mike Illitch feels about re-building. I think re-building on the fly is the worst he would go.

I have to ask....if you are letdown, what were your expectation coming into the season? Last time I checked which was yesterday afternoon, we were in a 4 way tie for 11th in the league. Were your expectations of this team top 5 in the NHL? Personally, this team hasn't let me down at all. They are exactly where I thought they would be. I don't expect this team to contend until Larkin/Mantha/AA/Mrazek get to that next level, and we acquire a 1A d-man.

You know whats actually going to be key is seeing the intentions of the owners....what the Tigers do. With all the talk about potentially trading away Miggy and JV, if ownership decides to pull the trigger it could be foreshadowing for the Wings. I would put money on it that Holland does not have the green light right now to trade away the vets and do any type of not on the fly re-build. I believe his mandate is to make the playoffs. It will be interesting to see. Who? If we are talking Helm probably one of the other five teams that were reported to have offered him more term/money then the Wings. Abby....I think you could find some suitors, I dont feel like looking through every teams roster/cap space right now to find out. Remember, not everyone has an opinion as low as yours on him. Nielson, I could see the NYI taking him back if they have the capspace. Either way, its a moot point.

Last year after the first game of the season, Abby was on pace for 246 goals lol.

Based on the way the poll is written, its only natural. He is essentially taking two approaches, and is saying would you rather do option A that will be successful, or option B that will be a failure, when it reality we have no clue how either option would actually turn out. If I ran a poll saying: "Would you rather the Wings re-tool on the fly and win a cup in 3 years" OR "Would rather the Wings tank, draft an elite player (ie. a McDavid, Crosby type) but not make the playoffs or win a cup for the next decade like the Oilers" Its not exactly a mystery as to how people would vote.

100% agree. Tanking should not be rewarded.

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.

no prob!

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.

"Game Day threads" is for the the literal GDT threads that are moved here in an archive capacity after they run their course in "general discussion". Anything that is a topic regarding the Wings should go in the "general discussion" section or else you wont get any replies.

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.

I also want to add, they have changed the way the draft works making tanking even less effective. You can now tank and be the worst team in the league and not draft until 4th. From NHL.com: 2016 NHL Draft Lottery Beginning in 2016, the Draft Lottery will be utilized to assign the top three drafting slots in the NHL Draft, an expansion over previous years when the Draft Lottery was used to determine the winner of the first overall selection only. Three draws will be held: the 1st Lottery draw will determine the Club selecting first overall, the 2nd Lottery draw will determine the Club selecting second overall and the 3rd Lottery draw will determine the club selecting third overall. As a result of this change, the team earning the fewest points during the regular season will no longer be guaranteed, at worst, the second overall pick. That club could fall as low as fourth overall. The allocation of odds for the 1st Lottery draw will be the same as outlined above for the 2015 NHL Draft Lottery. The odds for the remaining teams will increase on a proportionate basis for the 2nd Lottery draw, based on which Club wins the 1st Lottery draw, and again for the 3rd Lottery draw, based on which Club wins the 2nd Lottery draw. The 11 Clubs not selected in the Draft Lottery will be assigned NHL Draft selections 4 through 14, in inverse order of regular-season points.