joesuffP 1,746 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 Since 2009 the Red Wings have been on a noticeable slide. The last few summers there hasn't really been any franchise player free agents so Holland never offered any huge contracts thankfully. What I'm asking is do you think Holland saw these future free agents Parise and Suter and planned the last few years to keep cap space and float through the last 3 years in an attempt to rebuild w/o pulling an Edmonton Oilers. Do you think Holland tried to be a middle of the pack team and collect cap space for 3 years to rebuild? Or do you think Holland tried to ice a Stanley cup winning team each year and failed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z Winged Dangler 2,082 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 Since 2009 the Red Wings have been on a noticeable slide. The last few summers there hasn't really been any franchise player free agents so Holland never offered any huge contracts thankfully. What I'm asking is do you think Holland saw these future free agents Parise and Suter and planned the last few years to keep cap space and float through the last 3 years in an attempt to rebuild w/o pulling an Edmonton Oilers. Do you think Holland tried to be a middle of the pack team and collect cap space for 3 years to rebuild? Or do you think Holland tried to ice a Stanley cup winning team each year and failed? c) all of the above. Holland has kept the Wings competitive so they always have a shot to go deep in the playoffs, but at the same time, he's been waiting for the big names like Parise and Suter to come along and let the other 29 GM's overspend and sweat to stay under the cap and have to hide guys in the AHL and Europe. This offseason will be a big test for Kenny to see how he can negotiate those 2 big ticket players into coming to the Wings and keep the winning tradition alive. Without acquiring at least 1 of those 2, the Wings will be hard pressed next year to contend for the cup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 I don't think Holland could possibly have known certain players would be available two or three years down the road. I'm sure he was generally aware of who MIGHT become available, but I think his strategy was just to keep the Wings competitive. We spent to the Cap up until this last season, so our flexibility was limited. This year we had some, but the names just weren't there. I don't think he had some grand multi-season scheme, but instead he just tried to keep all the contracts reasonable to keep the team from descending into cap hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlashyG 1,799 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 I wouldn't say the Wings have been on a slide. They've finished with 102, 104 and 102 pts in those 3 years and this year being their worst of the 3 they finished 8th in the entire league. They haven't had much success in the playoffs but in the post lockout NHL the best you can ask for is to make the playoffs every year and anything can happen. Just look at the 2 teams in the WCF. I think the Wings Management team is always looking several years ahead, leaving enough cap room to add Free Agents and also for salary increases for the current roster. I also believe that while the Cup is always the goal, management probably doesn't consider every year they don't win it as a failure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 I wouldn't say the Wings have been on a slide. They've finished with 102, 104 and 102 pts in those 3 years and this year being their worst of the 3 they finished 8th in the entire league. They haven't had much success in the playoffs but in the post lockout NHL the best you can ask for is to make the playoffs every year and anything can happen. Just look at the 2 teams in the WCF. I think the Wings Management team is always looking several years ahead, leaving enough cap room to add Free Agents and also for salary increases for the current roster. I also believe that while the Cup is always the goal, management probably doesn't consider every year they don't win it as a failure. regular season points don't mean what they once did. Getting to 100 was a hard thing to do once apon a time. not anymore. The last 3 years in the playoffs tell the real story. 2 round twice, 1st round once. with the second oldest team in the NHL this is going to continue for a couple of more years. 1 centcougar07 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilzyme 769 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 regular season points don't mean what they once did. Getting to 100 was a hard thing to do once apon a time. not anymore. The last 3 years in the playoffs tell the real story. 2 round twice, 1st round once. with the second oldest team in the NHL this is going to continue for a couple of more years. No, regular season points still mean as much as they did. Seeding, home ice advantage, lottery, hell even making the damn big show. Please, don't tell anyone that "regular season points" don't matter from what they "used" to. If anything, please explain how much more regular season points meant back in "the day". Are you concerned because of the parity? Is that how they don't matter? I think this first round exit was the final stab into what needs to be done. After three unsuccessful postseasons (in OUR mindframe) I think we finally need to start pulling the trigger on the bigger acquisitions. We need more depth in our forwards and it showed big time during the injury bug and post-season. I think Babcock said it the best when he simply stated, "once we lost helm, it destroyed it. it made players change their roles and change their lines, it just caused people to go in the wrong places." THAT, is our bigger enemy right now. And the fact that we need a bonified sniper. Which is where Zach Parise comes in, with his legitimate scoring and yes say it with me, his defensive skills also. 1 PavelValerievichDatsyuk reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted May 8, 2012 regular season points don't mean what they once did. Getting to 100 was a hard thing to do once apon a time. not anymore. If it's so easy, why are the Wings the only team to have done it every season since the lockout? 1 LeftWinger reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,962 Report post Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) If it's so easy, why are the Wings the only team to have done it every season since the lockout? This! But I think what he meant was more teams get 100+ points now because of the stupid shootout and 1 point for an OT loss. The test would be to look at the points and take away the one point for the OT or SO loss and see where everyone would have ended up...or take away the shootout and see how many would've ended in a tie for 1 point....too much for me! Edited May 8, 2012 by LeftWinger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
