Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Holland losing his moxie? Is Detroit slipping as UFA destination?

ken holland

  • Please log in to reply
346 replies to this topic

#101 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:12 PM

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.


Every GM went after Suter....

An FA didn't choose us??? Holland's lost his touch and the wings have lost their luster!!!!

Holland and Ilitch are incredibly smart business men, to the point where they seem like evil geniuses...but they are not gods. They can't land every FA they want. Fortunately for us Hollands plan H is still better than Minnesotas plan A lol. We may have lost the battle, but we always win the war. It's what we do. It's what makes this franchise great.

We have an amazing amount of young talent in our system and looking ahead into the near future we will need plenty of money to sign guys like Filppula, Howard, Smith, Nyquist, Brunner, and Kindl. Then coming soon after that we will need to lock up the Jurcos, Tatars, Jarnkroks, and Frks, among others. Hockey is a business and business operates in cycles. There are peaks and troughs....and fortunately for us we are fans of a franchise whos trough means still making the playoffs!!! It's quite amazing actually. The writing is on the wall and it's beyond obvious, we've loaded up with a mass of talented prospects and were going to build internally as we always have done....this wave of prospects will be rolling in throughout the next 3 to 4 years and were looking at another cup in like 7 years.....hey it's better than waiting 30 to 40 years like most other franchises do.

Were in our trough right now, it's a gap year, we've signed gap/band-aid players....that being said were still competitive...can't wait for the season to start!!!!

Oh and Dabura, I know you think Holland should have been "better prepared" for Lidstroms departure....but Kronwall was always Lidstroms heir....and it's apparent that Smith will be filling Kronwalls old role....and Q was brought in to replace Stuart. Sounds good to me. And I think we will see Kronwall, Q, Smith, and Kindl take some steps forward on this team this year. Another depth D-man at some point will probably happen too though.

Edited by number9, 26 July 2012 - 02:14 PM.


#102 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:36 PM

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."

This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier.

You keep asking for examples, so someone gives one. Of course we can't know for sure if it would've made the team worse rather than better. Because it didn't happen.

They way you've constructed the argument, there's only two responses from you and either way they negate the proposed trade or signing. One, you criticize the player based on his traits and state as if they were facts the reason why they wouldn't be good for the Wings. Or if the proposal is actually somewhat reasonable suggestion and can't be easily dismissed that way, you can just say there's no way we'd know for sure if it would make the team better like you did above. That is true of all hypothetical situations so there's no way someone can answer your question.

Either way there is no possible answer that could satisfy your criteria. It's either "that player sucks for these reasons" or "we don't know for sure that would've helped."

You've set it up so no matter what someone says, you "win" the debate, which I'm guessing is why you enjoy this line of reasoning so much.

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.

But that's flawed reasoning.

Just because they were traded to one team doesn't mean they could've been to the Wings. And on the flipside just because a player wasn't traded doesn't mean that they couldn't have been traded to the Wings.

It's all ultimately speculation. I just don't understand expecting people here to prove some other scenario in order to be able to criticize Holland, and arguing from the position of what actually happened.

When the Wings lose, you might as well ask someone to prove a shot they could've taken that definitely would've scored so they could win the game. It seems less about actual hockey discussion and more about setting up the argument to win a debate.

#103 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

But that's flawed reasoning.

Just because they were traded to one team doesn't mean they could've been to the Wings. And on the flipside just because a player wasn't traded doesn't mean that they couldn't have been traded to the Wings.

It's all ultimately speculation. I just don't understand expecting people here to prove some other scenario and arguing from the position of what actually happened in order to be able to criticize Holland. When the Wings lose, you might as well ask someone to prove a shot they could've taken that definitely would've scored so they could win the game.


They are both speculation, but at least we know the player traded was a greater possibility. Seems more plausible that the Wings could have signed Erhoff rather than Chara right?

And when the Wings lose I can usually understand what happened, I see if there was a missed assignment on a goal, I look and see if there was a bad penalty, I see if our special teams was an issue, I'll consider many different situations that make up the hockey game. The one thing in common is I know exactly what plays happened, and who was responsible. I'm not speculating on something I'm not sure would of happened, I'm focusing on the events in game that did. Which in your analogy would be focusing on the player moves in the past seasons to see what we know happened, not speculating on the players that didn't get moved.

#104 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:50 PM

They are both speculation, but at least we know the player traded was a greater possibility. Seems more plausible that the Wings could have signed Erhoff rather than Chara right?

And when the Wings lose I can usually understand what happened, I see if there was a missed assignment on a goal, I look and see if there was a bad penalty, I see if our special teams was an issue, I'll consider many different situations that make up the hockey game. The one thing in common is I know exactly what plays happened, and who was responsible. I'm not speculating on something I'm not sure would of happened, I'm focusing on the events in game that did. Which in your analogy would be focusing on the player moves in the past seasons to see what we know happened, not speculating on the players that didn't get moved.

I'm beating this to death, so I'll just say this.

The way you and Crymson have constructed the argument, there is no possible answer anyone can give you that will satisfy you. So why have the discussion other than to get to shut people down and try to stop them from criticizing Holland?

Let's play this game. We'll go through every loss the Wings had last season. You guys tell me what they should have done differently to win, then I'll let you know if they would've won or not.

Get ready for one of these two answers:

1) That wouldn't have been enough because of (some hypothetical reasons I'll make up on the fly).
2) We'll never know because that's not what they did. It could've made them lose even worse.

#105 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:54 PM

I'm beating this to death, so I'll just say this.

The way you and Crymson have constructed the argument, there is no possible answer anyone can give you that will satisfy you. So why have the discussion other than to get to shut people down and try to stop them from criticizing Holland?


Maybe that's because there was no move Holland could have made, and any effort to criticize Holland on that stance is ignorant? Look it's possible to criticize Holland for lot's of things, Quincey trade/signing, McCollum/Ferrarro drafting, signing Williams, not signing Semin etc.

I'm just saying if you are going to criticize Holland have a reason.

#106 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:55 PM

They are both speculation, but at least we know the player traded was a greater possibility. Seems more plausible that the Wings could have signed Erhoff rather than Chara right?

And when the Wings lose I can usually understand what happened, I see if there was a missed assignment on a goal, I look and see if there was a bad penalty, I see if our special teams was an issue, I'll consider many different situations that make up the hockey game. The one thing in common is I know exactly what plays happened, and who was responsible. I'm not speculating on something I'm not sure would of happened, I'm focusing on the events in game that did. Which in your analogy would be focusing on the player moves in the past seasons to see what we know happened, not speculating on the players that didn't get moved.


omg this is some of the worst logic I've ever seen, and it's still all speculation bro....helll your speculating when you say one is a greater possibility than the other lol. Comparing watching a hockey game to past trades haha priceless.

#107 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:01 PM

omg this is some of the worst logic I've ever seen, and it's still all speculation bro....helll your speculating when you say one is a greater possibility than the other lol. Comparing watching a hockey game to past trades haha priceless.


He's the one that brought in the hockey game analogy, I'm not a big fan of it.

And my logic is yes, both are speculations, but one is speculation based on actual trades that happened, and the other is speculation on trades that never actually happened. So yes in my eyes there is a clear difference.

#108 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:01 PM

Maybe that's because there was no move Holland could have made, and any effort to criticize Holland on that stance is ignorant? Look it's possible to criticize Holland for lot's of things, Quincey trade/signing, McCollum/Ferrarro drafting, signing Williams, not signing Semin etc.

I'm just saying if you are going to criticize Holland have a reason.

That is just as big of speculation as someone saying that there was a trade out there. Holland not making a trade does not equal there was no move he could have made.

There's no way you can know that. It's not a fact, that's your opinion.

#109 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:09 PM

That is just as big of speculation as someone saying that there was a trade out there. Holland not making a trade does not equal there was no move he could have made.

There's no way you can know that. It's not a fact, that's your opinion.


No it's not, because we know the moves that have been made in the past 3-5 years. And the fact that no top pairing defenseman has switched teams is evidence that it was not possible for Holland to get that defenseman. If Duncan Keith, Chara were all getting traded the past few years and Holland didn't get one, then that's the evidence of Holland not making the right deals.

And yes I don't know all the possibilities of trades that could of happened, that's why I'd imagine we would focus on the players that did get traded and see if their was a player that was moved that Holland missed on.

#110 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:13 PM

He's the one that brought in the hockey game analogy, I'm not a big fan of it.

And my logic is yes, both are speculations, but one is speculation based on actual trades that happened, and the other is speculation on trades that never actually happened. So yes in my eyes there is a clear difference.


You nailed it on the head! That's the point! Both are speculations and mean NOTHING.

Even if one did have a greater possibility over the other (which you can't reasonably say because then you would just be speculating about speculating) in the end IT'S STILL SPECULATION

Edited by number9, 26 July 2012 - 03:15 PM.


#111 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:16 PM

No it's not, because we know the moves that have been made in the past 3-5 years. And the fact that no top pairing defenseman has switched teams is evidence that it was not possible for Holland to get that defenseman. If Duncan Keith, Chara were all getting traded the past few years and Holland didn't get one, then that's the evidence of Holland not making the right deals.

And yes I don't know all the possibilities of trades that could of happened, that's why I'd imagine we would focus on the players that did get traded and see if their was a player that was moved that Holland missed on.

But that's all based on seriously flawed logic.

The fact that a top pairing defenseman did not switch teams is in no way evidence that Holland could not have signed them. It's still just speculation on something that didn't happen. For all we know there could've been a deal on the table but Holland didn't pull the trigger because he thought the cost was too high.

Just like if Chara had gotten traded, that doesn't prove that Holland wasn't making the right deals. He may never have had a shot at that deal, because he didn't have the right players Boston wanted, or Chara didn't want to go to Detroit.

If you don't understand that distinction, then this argument is even more pointless than I thought.

#112 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:18 PM

You nailed on the head! That's the point! Both are speculations and mean NOTHING.

Even if one did have a greater possibility over the other (which you can't reasonably say because then you would just be speculating about speculating) in the end IT'S STILL SPECULATION


Sure liking this speculation word today. There is a difference in speculation and probability though. I prefer speculation based on past information that can be verified, rather than speculation based on nothing.

We got here because people criticize Holland for being in this situation, and I just want to know why they feel that way, and how they came to that conclusion.

#113 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:19 PM

No it's not, because we know the moves that have been made in the past 3-5 years. And the fact that no top pairing defenseman has switched teams is evidence that it was not possible for Holland to get that defenseman. If Duncan Keith, Chara were all getting traded the past few years and Holland didn't get one, then that's the evidence of Holland not making the right deals.

And yes I don't know all the possibilities of trades that could of happened, that's why I'd imagine we would focus on the players that did get traded and see if their was a player that was moved that Holland missed on.


Only a sith deals in absolutes

just cause it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not possible, this is all opinion. I actually agree with your stance on Holland but your arguing this terribly.

#114 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:22 PM

But that's all based on seriously flawed logic.

The fact that a top pairing defenseman did not switch teams is in no way evidence that Holland could not have signed them. It's still just speculation on something that didn't happen. For all we know there could've been a deal on the table but Holland didn't pull the trigger because he thought the cost was too high.

Just like if Chara had gotten traded, that doesn't prove that Holland wasn't making the right deals. He may never have had a shot at that deal, because he didn't have the right players Boston wanted, or Chara didn't want to go to Detroit.

If you don't understand that distinction, then this argument is even more pointless than I thought.


It is, I think I'm way off course on what I'm trying to mean haha.

All I'm trying to say is I don't feel there was a move to be made based on the moves that were actually made, and you guys apparently think there was a move even though none were made.

I don't know how to discuss impossibilities like that. Why do you feel there had to be a move Holland messed up on? Why couldn't there just been nothing he could have done? Finding a top pairing defenseman is a very difficult process, I sincerely doubt there was an option for Holland to bring one in and he passed on it.

Edited by Carman, 26 July 2012 - 03:24 PM.


#115 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:28 PM

Sure liking this speculation word today. There is a difference in speculation and probability though. I prefer speculation based on past information that can be verified, rather than speculation based on nothing.

We got here because people criticize Holland for being in this situation, and I just want to know why they feel that way, and how they came to that conclusion.


......Uhhhhhh cause that's what your doing lol. I understand you want to know how people came to this conclusion on Holland. I agree with you there, I don't understand that conclusion either, but you can't make this argument. Saying that one is more probable than the other is speculation IN ITSELF (I think that's like the third time I've had to say that now). Even so, lets assume your correct....that it is better to talk about players who have been traded in the past...It's still all speculation and still a terrible argument lol.

#116 WingsAlways

WingsAlways

    Grind Line 2.0

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:49 PM

Just like if Chara had gotten traded, that doesn't prove that Holland wasn't making the right deals. He may never have had a shot at that deal, because he didn't have the right players Boston wanted, or Chara didn't want to go to Detroit.


OMG that would be my wet dream, seeing Chara wearing the Winged Wheel. A guy can only fantasize...

But realistically, I can't imagine players not wanting to come to Detroit because they think we're going downhill or that we suck. Who with any talent, wouldn't want to play with Datsyuk? We just need a player with the positive mentally of "oh wow, if I was on a line with him we could be dangerous!" Surely that player exists, and he will be a Wing. Maybe not this season, maybe not even next season but he'll come along.

"Wow Chicago, you've won four Stanley Cups? Me too! - Kris Draper"


#117 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:54 PM

A really smart player

OMG that would be my wet dream, seeing Chara wearing the Winged Wheel. A guy can only fantasize...

But realistically, I can't imagine players not wanting to come to Detroit because they think we're going downhill or that we suck. Who with any talent, wouldn't want to play with Datsyuk? We just need a player with the positive mentally of "oh wow, if I was on a line with him we could be dangerous!" Surely that player exists, and he will be a Wing. Maybe not this season, maybe not even next season but he'll come along.


A really smart player would come here just to pad his stats for a couple seasons and then leave us for a big pay day somewhere else lol....However I think most of em love it here once they get here and then they never leave! (f*** HOSSA)

Edited by number9, 26 July 2012 - 03:55 PM.


#118 pucktividi

pucktividi

    the usual suspect

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts
  • Location:Croatia

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:52 PM

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.


Idk.maybe giving an extra million to wisniewski,ehrhoff or trade for boghosian would help,just don't stand pat and pray your prospects(E,Kindl) are gonna turn into studs after 4-5 years of so-so hockey.

Agree on Smith though,but still rather wanted to see him playing the whole season with Nick here than in GR.

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.


No one said it's easy,but your goal as a GM should be to improve your team,sorry,but I didn't see any significant improvement on the defense for the second off season in a row.

#119 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,088 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:22 PM

He's a real nowhere man...

Don't Toews me, bro!


#120 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,088 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:56 PM

Sitting in his nowhere land...

Don't Toews me, bro!






Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ken holland

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users