346 replies to this topic

[haroldsnepsts]

Mind answering my question then? If it's that simple, which defenseman are you thinking he should have went after?

Same with The Axe above me. Which defenseman that has been traded/free agent the past few seasons are you guys thinking of? I'd love to know. Bring something to the table.

I've already answered this multiple times when Crymson asks it.

It's an absurdly difficult request to prove something that didn't happen, and really just sets you guys up so you can shoot down any idea that someone comes up with. When the reality is, you have no idea what could've happened either.

As I said before, if I knew all the deals that were available and that they could definitely happen and that they would improve the team, I'd take Ken Holland's job. A lot of these deals you never even hear about it and see coming until they happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the expectation that Holland could do a little better than a fan on a wings forum.

The example I use is the Kings. Before it happened, who really could've thought that they'd bring in Mike Richards? That trade would've been shot down as absurd. Surely the Flyers wouldn't get rid of their captain and someone they had signed until 2020. Plus there was all the drama and drinking and questionable work ethic surrounding Richards there. Surely that would be a terrible trade for the Kings. The Carter trade too. There's no way the Kings would give up a talented young defenseman they signed long term in Jack Johnson to bring in Carter. Carter and Richards together is even worse! Bring the drinking buddies together?? and Carter was doing nothing but moping in Columbus. No way the Kings make that deal, right? It would devastate the team.

or maybe not.

[RedWingsDad]

Goose said it best = no points for 2nd place.

Some people don't seem to understand the business aspect of the Red Wings. Of course Holland and Illitch want to win a Cup ever year... winning a cup is very profitable. On the other hand, they are also thinking long term because making the playoffs every year and fielding a winning team is also profitable. This is why we don't go ALL IN for short term success, and are always thinking for the long term. Illitch (and Holland by proxy) is a smart business man. In that light, it would have handcuffed our success (read: profitability) down the road if we obtained long term 9 million dollar contracts for both Suter & Parise.

Edited by RedWingsDad, 26 July 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Red Crazy]

Some people don't seem to understand the business aspect of the Red Wings. Of course Holland and Illitch want to win a Cup ever year... winning a cup is very profitable. On the other hand, they are also thinking long term because making the playoffs every year and fielding a winning team is also profitable. This is why we don't go ALL IN for short term success, and are always thinking for the long term. Illitch (and Holland by proxy) is a smart business man. In that light, it would have handcuffed our success (read: profitability) down the road if we obtained long term 9 million dollar contracts for both Suter & Parise.

So are you saying that you think Holland would not have matched Minny's offer if givin a chance? He would have in a second because Ken Holland was ALL IN on Parise and Suter. They chose Minny. I think Ken Holland is a good GM but you can't really say that he did a smart buisness move by not signing Parise and Suter to big contracts because he sure as hell tried to. If I missed your point please explain.

[Carman]

I've already answered this multiple times when Crymson asks it.

It's an absurdly difficult request to prove something that didn't happen, and really just sets you guys up so you can shoot down any idea that someone comes up with. When the reality is, you have no idea what could've happened either.

As I said before, if I knew all the deals that were available and that they could definitely happen and that they would improve the team, I'd take Ken Holland's job. A lot of these deals you never even hear about it and see coming until they happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the expectation that Holland could do a little better than a fan on a wings forum.

The example I use is the Kings. Before it happened, who really could've thought that they'd bring in Mike Richards? That trade would've been shot down as absurd. Surely the Flyers wouldn't get rid of their captain and someone they had signed until 2020. Plus there was all the drama and drinking and questionable work ethic surrounding Richards there. Surely that would be a terrible trade for the Kings. The Carter trade too. There's no way the Kings would give up a talented young defenseman they signed long term in Jack Johnson to bring in Carter. Carter and Richards together is even worse! Bring the drinking buddies together?? and Carter was doing nothing but moping in Columbus. No way the Kings make that deal, right? It would devastate the team.

or maybe not.

That's why it's ludicrous to criticize Holland on a situation that "you" don't know existed. The burden of proof is on you guys who are saying he should have done something, and yet you can't come up with a reasonable player that would fix the problem. How do you hold someone accountable for messing up a situation that never existed? Rational people have evidence that they argue for, I'm not shooting down anything, if you think Carle, Erhoff, Burns etc. are legitimate top pairing defneseman and would fit into the Red Wings system and are worth commiting long term to, that's your opinion, they are good hockey players, I don't necessarily agree that they would be good fits, but at least you bring up reasonable situations that we "know" Holland could have done and can discuss how the moves would have put the Red Wings in a better place right now and in the future.

Arguing what-if's of trades that actually happened is bad enough, arguing non-existant what-ifs trades is an even larger assumption that I personally don't see the rational logic behind.

Fact is we don't know what Holland could have done, but I'd rather focus on the trades and players we know have moved teams, and know without doubt Holland could have landed, rather then making up trade scenarios that might have never been a possibility. If that's too much to ask, then I guess I'll let people bash Holland for not trading for Chara, Karlsson, Doughty etc. I know I'd rather talk about situations that actually happened, and see if there are lessons to be learned in the past, rather then making up our own history and debate about things that we aren't sure were ever a possibility.

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, keep listing names so the Holland pups can cross their arms and shake their head no at every single one of them. Then proclaim, see Holland is God.

esteef

I wish we were better than getting on people who defend/criticize Holland as one single entity then act like we have made a solid point somewhere along the way.

At least Harold followed this up with substance.

My personal opinion: Falling back down to earth is inevitable. Holland is a human being, as good as he may or may not be. He isn't going to be able to draft steals in the late rounds anymore because every player from every league is being scouted. Because we have had so many years with low draft picks, we were bound to lose talent along the way. The more the years have been going on, the harder it has been to draft solid NHL-level talent and either use them for the team or use them for trades, which is why the Red Wings are getting worse.

There may be issues with how Holland is pursuing players, but at the same time you have to think of the possibility that this Red Wings juggernaut has to come back down to earth at some point, great manager or not. Thanks to some poor luck in free agency (which is what you are banking on if you rely on that to get talent, rightly or wrongly), Detroit now needs to figure out a way to find talent. If they can't, they can't. It happens.

[haroldsnepsts]

That's why it's ludicrous to criticize Holland on a situation that "you" don't know existed. The burden of proof is on you guys who are saying he should have done something, and yet you can't come up with a reasonable player that would fix the problem. How do you hold someone accountable for messing up a situation that never existed? Rational people have evidence that they argue for, I'm not shooting down anything, if you think Carle, Erhoff, Burns etc. are legitimate top pairing defneseman and would fit into the Red Wings system and are worth commiting long term to, that's your opinion, they are good hockey players, I don't necessarily agree that they would be good fits, but at least you bring up reasonable situations that we "know" Holland could have done and can discuss how the moves would have put the Red Wings in a better place right now and in the future.

Arguing what-if's of trades that actually happened is bad enough, arguing non-existant what-ifs trades is an even larger assumption that I personally don't see the rational logic behind.

Fact is we don't know what Holland could have done, but I'd rather focus on the trades and players we know have moved teams, and know without doubt Holland could have landed, rather then making up trade scenarios that might have never been a possibility. If that's too much to ask, then I guess I'll let people bash Holland for not trading for Chara, Karlsson, Doughty etc. I know I'd rather talk about situations that actually happened, and see if there are lessons to be learned in the past, rather then making up our own history and debate about things that we aren't sure were ever a possibility.

Then why did you ask people to do exactly that, to make up trades that were hypothetical and could never know for sure that they could've happened?

And how could we possibly know without a doubt the players Holland could have landed, unless he actually successfully brought them here?

Holland is among if not the best GM in the league. I'm not unhappy because I think he's crappy at his job. I'm unhappy because I expect more of him. And I'm not talking about not getting Suter or Nash. He basically painted himself into a corner this offseason and is looking very un-Holland like having to chase after all these big free agents. Lidstrom's retirement was a known event. Stuart going back to California was a known event. I would've hoped he'd have a better transition plan. And I can think that without having to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt what that transition plan could've been. Because no matter what I say, it didn't happen, so it's pretty easy for you to shoot down.

You say the burden of proof is on us, but then in the same post you also say you don't see the logic behind arguing hypothetical trades either? So what is it you expect, other than for people not to complain?

Your argument is essentially trying to quell criticism and debate here, which is the problem I have with it. I don't agree with a lot of the Holland bashing here, but we're not in a court of law we're on a fan forum. People are allowed to express their opinions, even without irrefutable evidence.

[haroldsnepsts]

I wish we were better than getting on people who defend/criticize Holland as one single entity then act like we have made a solid point somewhere along the way.

At least Harold followed this up with substance.

My personal opinion: Falling back down to earth is inevitable. Holland is a human being, as good as he may or may not be. He isn't going to be able to draft steals in the late rounds anymore because every player from every league is being scouted. Because we have had so many years with low draft picks, we were bound to lose talent along the way. The more the years have been going on, the harder it has been to draft solid NHL-level talent and either use them for the team or use them for trades, which is why the Red Wings are getting worse.

There may be issues with how Holland is pursuing players, but at the same time you have to think of the possibility that this Red Wings juggernaut has to come back down to earth at some point, great manager or not. Thanks to some poor luck in free agency (which is what you are banking on if you rely on that to get talent, rightly or wrongly), Detroit now needs to figure out a way to find talent. If they can't, they can't. It happens.

I completely agree.

What I don't agree with is the expectation that all fans should be happy about that and quietly accept it, even if it is an inevitability. To me trying to get Wings fans to just accept the situation and support Holland is more absurd than expecting Holland to always be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat to keep the Wings a Cup contender.

The latter is at least hockey related, if unrealistic. The former is trying to get people to behave rationally by lecturing them, when being a fan is mostly an irrational activity.

[RedWingsDad]

So are you saying that you think Holland would not have matched Minny's offer if givin a chance? He would have in a second because Ken Holland was ALL IN on Parise and Suter. They chose Minny. I think Ken Holland is a good GM but you can't really say that he did a smart buisness move by not signing Parise and Suter to big contracts because he sure as hell tried to. If I missed your point please explain.

Well, let me back up a bit. The actual cap hit for both Parise and Suter is 7.53 million. The person I quoted threw around the 9 million per year figure and I was commenting off that. I definitely don't think we would have accepted a 9 million cap hit for each of them. That being said, I am not sure if we would have agreed to a 13 year, 98 million dollar contract for both either. Holland is not a huge fan of long term contracts, as I have read, and we already have Franzen and Z tied up in them. I speculate he would have signed Suter to such a contract.... but Parise? That's a tough one... I'm not sure.

edit: I wanted to add that our offer to Suter started at 80 million and grew to 90 million...would Holland have matched 98 million, a 18 million increase over our original offer? Suter was at a premium in our eyes because of our situation... but really, he is no Pronger / Weber / Charra... I honestly don't think he is worth that much money, and maybe Ken Holland didn't either. Maybe he had the chance to match Minnies offer... was it ever confirmed he didn't?

Edited by RedWingsDad, 26 July 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[TheXym]

What happens if Nyquist and Smith both have Calder worthy seasons, Brunner surprises, and Filppula increases his point total? Will the same people bashing Holland now turn around and call him genius?

The point about the mighty Wings falling back to earth after decades of excellence due to late drafts and significantly increased parity in the league is one we all need to remember.

The Blues had a longer streak of playoff appearances than the current streak of the Wings. How many Finals appearances and Cups do they have to show for it. A lot less than the Wings do during theirs. To sustain the level of franchise he did across the salary cap inception is impressive indeed, since the draft and cap were largely geared to keep a franchise from maintaining such lofty height for so long ("parity"). Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if most GM's would up their trade prices for the Wings out of jealously or not wanting to be seen as helping to feed the beast.

With the looming CBA changes, things could radically alter the playing field again. Part of Holland's plan may be to see what happens with that so he can react accordingly. Until the wheels come off, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. In some ways he is like the chess grandmaster who can see seven or eight moves ahead, and can sacrifice short term in what looks like a rout to end the match by springing a well disguised trap that NOBODY saw coming.

Edited by TheXym, 26 July 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Dabura]

Holland wasn't adequately prepared for Nick's retirement. That's self-evident. I don't like that I'm apparently beholden to justify this with an answer to a hypothetical, retrospective, alternate-universe question that is altogether essentially moot, not to mention kind of stupid. If I say he should've traded for Dan Girardi several seasons ago, I'll get "Yeah, but hindsight is 20/20. You're looking at Girardi through the lens of now, with the knowledge that in several seasons he'll become one of the NHL's premier defenseman" etc. Our top-4 is Kronwall-White, Quincey-x. That is called not being prepared. What I say he coulda shoulda woulda done doesn't really matter.

[Carman]

Then why did you ask people to do exactly that, to make up trades that were hypothetical and could never know for sure that they could've happened?

And how could we possibly know without a doubt the players Holland could have landed, unless he actually successfully brought them here?

Holland is among if not the best GM in the league. I'm not unhappy because I think he's crappy at his job. I'm unhappy because I expect more of him. And I'm not talking about not getting Suter or Nash. He basically painted himself into a corner this offseason and is looking very un-Holland like having to chase after all these big free agents. Lidstrom's retirement was a known event. Stuart going back to California was a known event. I would've hoped he'd have a better transition plan. And I can think that without having to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt what that transition plan could've been. Because no matter what I say, it didn't happen, so it's pretty easy for you to shoot down.

You say the burden of proof is on us, but then in the same post you also say you don't see the logic behind arguing hypothetical trades either? So what is it you expect, other than for people not to complain?

Your argument is essentially trying to quell criticism and debate here, which is the problem I have with it. I don't agree with a lot of the Holland bashing here, but we're not in a court of law we're on a fan forum. People are allowed to express their opinions, even without irrefutable evidence.

I'm asking people for players that have actually been traded, because at least then we know it was possible they were to be traded. And we don't know Holland could have landed them, but at least we know they were tradeable in hind-sight rather then just making up that a player we think was tradeable when he never ended up switching teams.

I'm not shooting things down, I'm asking for rational moves that Holland could have made to avoid this situation. Just saying he's done a bad job isn't good enough for me, I want to know individual events that he should have and could have made. It might be different for other people, and they are content with criticizing people without any knowledge of events that could improved the situation. I guess I'm different and want to know what move Holland should have made instead of what he actually did rather then just looking at the result and complaining.

I just don't understand the complaints without evidence. If Enstrom gets traded tomorrow for a reasonable price, then boom there's my evidence that Holland isn't doing a good enough job. But there hasn't been a top tier defenseman that I know of that's switched teams that would fill what the Red Wings need other than Suter, I want people to bring up Erhoff, Burns, Carle, Shultz etc., and discuss how those players would make a better Red Wings team in the future, for my angle at least I know those players actually moved to a new team.

I understand this is a forum, and this is my defense of Holland. I feel if you criticize someone you should have reasonable reasons as to what he didn't do, rather then he didn't anything.

I'm not trying to quell anything, I feel people can criticize Holland for trading for Quincy, signing Ian White, drafting McCollum etc. Because these are things that happened, and we look back on other options and how the franchise would fair with different moves. But just blaming Holland for not doing anything? I just don't understand it, and am posting on the forum to get a better understand of it.

[Carman]

Holland wasn't adequately prepared for Nick's retirement. That's self-evident. I don't like that I'm apparently beholden to justify this with an answer to a hypothetical, retrospective, alternate-universe question that is altogether essentially moot, not to mention kind of stupid. If I say he should've traded for Dan Girardi several seasons ago, I'll get "Yeah, but hindsight is 20/20. You're looking at Girardi through the lens of now, with the knowledge that in several seasons he'll become one of the NHL's premier defenseman" etc. Our top-4 is Kronwall-White, Quincey-x. That is called not being prepared. What I say he coulda shoulda woulda done doesn't really matter.

But Girardi never switched teams, that's moot. If he was traded at the deadline, then there's your evidence that Holland isn't doing the right moves. I don't see what's so radical about me asking for players that actually switched teams, I feel it's a fair circumstance that if we are looking for moves Holland should have done, we should probably start with players that actually moved. Just seems logical to me.

[Dabura]

It'd make for a good, fun side-discussion - this hypothetical question, I mean. We all like to daydream about different scenarios and alternate possibilities. But using it as some kind of counter to the notion that Holland should've been better prepared for Nick's departure is lame.

But Girardi never switched teams, that's moot.

Dude, come on.

[Doc Holliday]

I completely agree.

What I don't agree with is the expectation that all fans should be happy about that and quietly accept it, even if it is an inevitability. To me trying to get Wings fans to just accept the situation and support Holland is more absurd than expecting Holland to always be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat to keep the Wings a Cup contender.

The latter is at least hockey related, if unrealistic. The former is trying to get people to behave rationally by lecturing them, when being a fan is mostly an irrational activity.

My point is it doesn't matter what GM you have. Getting upset at the situation and saying that "Ken Holland is a poor General Manager" are two completely different things. I never thought Holland was a master GM that everyone thought, and I don't think he is as bad as some people are implying. The market is thin (has been for some years) and when you don't draft high you have a harder time each year to bring in competitive talent without having to resort to trades and risk cap space on free agents.

I don't even think our perspectives differ all that much.

[pucktividi]

Holland tried to replace Lidstrom the right way-through the draft.

Which is the best way to operate in the cap world,unless your prospects don't pan out like ours.

You don't stand pat then like Ken,rather try to get your top d-men outside of the organisation and make the retirement of your #2 and #1 d-men much less painful.

Edited by pucktividi, 26 July 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Carman]

Which is the best way to operate in the cap world,unless your prospects don't pan out like ours.

You don't stand pat then like Ken,rather try to get your top d-men outside of the organisation and make the retirement of your #2 and #1 d-men much less painful.

Sooo what d-men outside the organization are you thinking of?

And who says Brendan Smith can't develop into a top pairing defenseman? He has as good or better shot as anyone else the Wing's could have drafted the past 4 years in my eyes at least.

[Z Winged Dangler]

What happens if Nyquist and Smith both have Calder worthy seasons, Brunner surprises, and Filppula increases his point total? Will the same people bashing Holland now turn around and call him genius?

The point about the mighty Wings falling back to earth after decades of excellence due to late drafts and significantly increased parity in the league is one we all need to remember.

The Blues had a longer streak of playoff appearances than the current streak of the Wings. How many Finals appearances and Cups do they have to show for it. A lot less than the Wings do during theirs. To sustain the level of franchise he did across the salary cap inception is impressive indeed, since the draft and cap were largely geared to keep a franchise from maintaining such lofty height for so long ("parity"). Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if most GM's would up their trade prices for the Wings out of jealously or not wanting to be seen as helping to feed the beast.

With the looming CBA changes, things could radically alter the playing field again. Part of Holland's plan may be to see what happens with that so he can react accordingly. Until the wheels come off, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. In some ways he is like the chess grandmaster who can see seven or eight moves ahead, and can sacrifice short term in what looks like a rout to end the match by springing a well disguised trap that NOBODY saw coming.

Just wanted to amplify a few of your key points. Very good post and with the salary cap era and the Wings being competitive for so long, we may end up seeing the core of our team get younger and that's what a lot of people around here wanted. Maybe Nyquist and Jurco are the next Dats and Z in the making. Maybe Smith is the next Scott Stevens. No one knows until they get a chance and I for one can't wait for the puck to drop on this season. The unknowns going into this year are pretty exciting. Not like every other year where the only question is if the old dogs will stay healthy enough to get past the 2nd round...

[Doc Holliday]

Which is the best way to operate in the cap world,unless your prospects don't pan out like ours.

You don't stand pat then like Ken,rather try to get your top d-men outside of the organisation and make the retirement of your #2 and #1 d-men much less painful.

You make it sound like it is as easy as pressing a button.

Holland went after Suter when he had the space to replace him. Suter went for Minny.

[Crymson]

Dude, come on.

There isn't the faintest bit of certainty that the loss of the assets given up for Girardi in a trade might not have made the team worse rather than better, not to mention that there's no way to tell if Girardi would have excelled in the Wings' system.

It's not so simple as "We should have traded for him. Then our team would have been way better."

[Red Crazy]

Well, let me back up a bit. The actual cap hit for both Parise and Suter is 7.53 million. The person I quoted threw around the 9 million per year figure and I was commenting off that. I definitely don't think we would have accepted a 9 million cap hit for each of them. That being said, I am not sure if we would have agreed to a 13 year, 98 million dollar contract for both either. Holland is not a huge fan of long term contracts, as I have read, and we already have Franzen and Z tied up in them. I speculate he would have signed Suter to such a contract.... but Parise? That's a tough one... I'm not sure.

edit: I wanted to add that our offer to Suter started at 80 million and grew to 90 million...would Holland have matched 98 million, a 18 million increase over our original offer? Suter was at a premium in our eyes because of our situation... but really, he is no Pronger / Weber / Charra... I honestly don't think he is worth that much money, and maybe Ken Holland didn't either. Maybe he had the chance to match Minnies offer... was it ever confirmed he didn't?

Thats just the thing, we will never know for sure. My thought is that if Parise and Suter wanted to play in Detroit they would have either agreed to the 90m or told Kenny to match Minnies 98m offer. So in that way of thinking they chose Minnie over Detroit. But throughout the whole Suter/Parise signing I never heard or read once that Detroit backed out because the price was too high.