Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Holland signs 4 year extension with wings **MOD Warning Post 130**



  • Please log in to reply
256 replies to this topic

#121 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:09 AM

 
 
When you have a Crosby/Malkin/Letang or Toews/Kane/Keith, you pretty much know you have them for the next 10 - 15 seasons to build around, so you're not thinking about building a new core right now, you don't know what you'll have in the next 10 to 15 seasons.
 
With Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Kronwall we have them for the next 3+ years. We are very much thinking about building a new core. And for the Wings a core comes from within, not from without, for a variety of reasons. If our core was younger I'd definitely expect more risky trades to be happening, because we could afford to make those possible mistakes with a young core. 

Ok so your logic which I guess I can agree. We can't really judge the hawks or pens until their core is retired an we will see how they are. If they can match it by winning one cup once Crosby and malkin are gone or not. I think that's fair?

Or four cups in a twenty year span.


I guess I don't follow your thinking with the core. You'd think with our current core being older wouldn't you want to win now or them? What about our younger players? If say nyquist is apart of our next core why was it better to sign/resign old veterans and have him stuck in the minors? When in the end we weren't going to win a cup and nyquist would bring the same points or more then say Alfie or cleary at this point in their careers.I'm well rounded in all sports. Like when I first started watching the tigers and fully understandin things they were god awful. I saw Michigans streaks end. Stupid little streaks MEAN NOTHING winning championships do. Building/rebuilding to win championships doesn't bother me at all. But there's clear choices to make one way or another not a little of both.

Nothing worse than just sitting on the fence and getting no where.


Also explain how that's arrogance? Stating a fact that the wings tanked and got good players is arrogant? Damn learn something new everyday lol.


Edited by haroldsnepsts, 17 August 2014 - 07:27 PM.
removed deleted post


#122 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:52 AM

Ok so your logic which I guess I can agree. We can't really judge the hawks or pens until their core is retired an we will see how they are. If they can match it by winning one cup once Crosby and malkin are gone or not. I think that's fair?

Or four cups in a twenty year span.


I guess I don't follow your thinking with the core. You'd think with our current core being older wouldn't you want to win now or them? What about our younger players? If say nyquist is apart of our next core why was it better to sign/resign old veterans and have him stuck in the minors? When in the end we weren't going to win a cup and nyquist would bring the same points or more then say Alfie or cleary at this point in their careers.
I'm well rounded in all sports. Like when I first started watching the tigers and fully understandin things they were god awful. I saw Michigans streaks end. Stupid little streaks MEAN NOTHING winning championships do. Building/rebuilding to win championships doesn't bother me at all. But there's clear choices to make one way or another not a little of both.

Nothing worse than just sitting on the fence and getting no where.


Also explain how that's arrogance? Stating a fact that the wings tanked and got good players is arrogant? Damn learn something new everyday lol.

 

 

They didn't tank. They tried but went through a drought anyway. The whole notion of tanking is mostly a cap era phenomenon anyway. Therefore it's arrogant of you to just assume the Wings tanked the team in order to get a guy like Yzerman when you weren't even there. Because that's not what happened, and Stevie, even though he's heralded as such, was not the savior of this organization. He very well could have been the first coming of John Tavares had Wings not played their cards almost perfectly.

 

In regards to your above statements. Hindsight is 20/20. Just because we didn't win a cup those years doesn't mean the wings couldn't have. And the organization as well as most of us believed, and still do believe, they had a fair shot. Playing older vets kept younger players, like Nyquist, in the minors to build their confidence and develop their game better than they would being rushed into the NHL. Since vets, like you said, got essentially the same points that a rookie would have, there was more good done than harm.

 

I'm glad you're well-rounded in most sports. It means you obviously know that most hockey players aren't normally ready until 24, 26, or sometimes even 27, unlike most American sports where the ready-age is between 18 and 22. This organization is going to continue sheltering prospects as best they can until they hit those years despite anyone's impatient clamoring. Aside from the rare few who can truly squeak in at an earlier age.

 

Also, Wings players have routinely expressed their pleasure with Ken always putting together a veteran team. 


Edited by number9, 17 August 2014 - 12:53 AM.


#123 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 01:19 AM

 
 
They didn't tank. They tried but went through a drought anyway. The whole notion of tanking is mostly a cap era phenomenon anyway. Therefore it's arrogant of you to just assume the Wings tanked the team in order to get a guy like Yzerman when you weren't even there. Because that's not what happened, and Stevie, even though he's heralded as such, was not the savior of this organization. He very well could have been the first coming of John Tavares had Wings not played their cards almost perfectly.
 
In regards to your above statements. Hindsight is 20/20. Just because we didn't win a cup those years doesn't mean the wings couldn't have. And the organization as well as most of us believed, and still do believe, they had a fair shot. Playing older vets kept younger players, like Nyquist, in the minors to build their confidence and develop their game better than they would being rushed into the NHL. Since vets, like you said, got essentially the same points that a rookie would have, there was more good done than harm.
 
I'm glad you're well-rounded in most sports. It means you obviously know that most hockey players aren't normally ready until 24, 26, or sometimes even 27, unlike most American sports where the ready-age is between 18 and 22. This organization is going to continue sheltering prospects as best they can until they hit those years despite anyone's impatient clamoring. Aside from the rare few who can truly squeak in at an earlier age.
 
Also, Wings players have routinely expressed their pleasure with Ken always putting together a veteran team. 


Who are you to say the hawks or pens tanked? No one knows if anyone actually tanks therefore tanking=losing in sports. Not the proper definition buts that's how it's used.


Also the 24 26 28 age you through out is a bit off. I don't remember the exact ages but someone posted the years players had their highest goal totals and I though the best years were 22-24 I think? I could be remember 100% wrong but I believe that's what it was.

Edited by DeGraa55, 17 August 2014 - 01:24 AM.


#124 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 17 August 2014 - 02:20 AM

Who are you to say the hawks or pens tanked? No one knows if anyone actually tanks therefore tanking=losing in sports. Not the proper definition buts that's how it's used.


Also the 24 26 28 age you through out is a bit off. I don't remember the exact ages but someone posted the years players had their highest goal totals and I though the best years were 22-24 I think? I could be remember 100% wrong but I believe that's what it was.

 

I don't know how long you've been in the hockey community, but it's pretty universally understood that the Pens purposefully tanked for the team they have now. The Crosby selection made them the poster boy for the tanking strategy, like what will be done for McDavid this season. The financial hardships they had forced that hand in many ways, but that's what happens when you resign to "being bad". If you are insistent on arguing this point I suggest researching those teams and the late 70s early 80s wings before commenting further.

 

 

http://fromtherink.s...ayers-prime-age

 

http://news.ubc.ca/2...5/15/nhl-study/

 

Some cite a players prime age as early as 24,  some as late as 29. I have no idea where you are getting 22-24 from. Those players are rare, but usually dominant. The Wings want their kids to enter the league in a dominant year. That's what over-ripening is all about.


Edited by number9, 17 August 2014 - 02:35 AM.


#125 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,960 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 17 August 2014 - 07:40 AM

Still not sure how I feel about this.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#126 joshy207

joshy207

    Black Ace

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Location:Berkley, MI

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:14 PM

"Tanking" implies losing on purpose.  Whether it's players underperforming, coaches using the wrong players or strategies, or management making moves to make the team worse, it's done with the intent of finishing lower in the standings and getting a higher draft pick.  Draft lotteries were invented to reduce the chances of this strategy working.  It was done more often in other sports, where high draft picks almost always become impact players right away.  The Indianapolis Colts' "Suck for Luck" season is one of the most recent examples.

The Red Wings did not tank to get Steve Yzerman, and there are two obvious reasons why: 1, the Wings had been terrible for almost two decades, making the playoffs twice in 17 years and only winning one series.  They didn't lose on purpose in "82-'83, they just couldn't win.  2, the Wings were heavily targeting local product Pat LaFontaine with the #4 pick, but he went #3 to the Islanders.  Yzerman was the consolation prize.


 

 

They didn't tank. They tried but went through a drought anyway. The whole notion of tanking is mostly a cap era phenomenon anyway. Therefore it's arrogant of you to just assume the Wings tanked the team in order to get a guy like Yzerman when you weren't even there. Because that's not what happened, and Stevie, even though he's heralded as such, was not the savior of this organization. He very well could have been the first coming of John Tavares had Wings not played their cards almost perfectly.

 

In regards to your above statements. Hindsight is 20/20. Just because we didn't win a cup those years doesn't mean the wings couldn't have. And the organization as well as most of us believed, and still do believe, they had a fair shot. Playing older vets kept younger players, like Nyquist, in the minors to build their confidence and develop their game better than they would being rushed into the NHL. Since vets, like you said, got essentially the same points that a rookie would have, there was more good done than harm.

 

I'm glad you're well-rounded in most sports. It means you obviously know that most hockey players aren't normally ready until 24, 26, or sometimes even 27, unlike most American sports where the ready-age is between 18 and 22. This organization is going to continue sheltering prospects as best they can until they hit those years despite anyone's impatient clamoring. Aside from the rare few who can truly squeak in at an earlier age.

 

Also, Wings players have routinely expressed their pleasure with Ken always putting together a veteran team. 

 

Tanking has been around for much longer than salary caps.  I think it's tougher to do today, between the cap and roster/player movement limitations.

 

Also, I think your "ready age" numbers are considerably off.  http://www.sbnation....es-age-analysis


Edited by joshy207, 17 August 2014 - 12:19 PM.


#127 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:37 PM

"Tanking" implies losing on purpose.  Whether it's players underperforming, coaches using the wrong players or strategies, or management making moves to make the team worse, it's done with the intent of finishing lower in the standings and getting a higher draft pick.  Draft lotteries were invented to reduce the chances of this strategy working.  It was done more often in other sports, where high draft picks almost always become impact players right away.  The Indianapolis Colts' "Suck for Luck" season is one of the most recent examples.

The Red Wings did not tank to get Steve Yzerman, and there are two obvious reasons why: 1, the Wings had been terrible for almost two decades, making the playoffs twice in 17 years and only winning one series.  They didn't lose on purpose in "82-'83, they just couldn't win.  2, the Wings were heavily targeting local product Pat LaFontaine with the #4 pick, but he went #3 to the Islanders.  Yzerman was the consolation prize.


 

Tanking has been around for much longer than salary caps.  I think it's tougher to do today, between the cap and roster/player movement limitations.

 

Also, I think your "ready age" numbers are considerably off.  http://www.sbnation....es-age-analysis

 

That article seems to conclude most forwards peak around 24, which is precisely the one of the ages I cited. How is that considerably off at all? The article states that 21-22 forwards show good production in the NHL, but don't get played because their defense is under-developed, aka they aren't ready.



#128 joshy207

joshy207

    Black Ace

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Location:Berkley, MI

Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:41 PM

 

That article seems to conclude most forwards peak around 24, which is precisely the one of the ages I cited. How is that considerably off at all? The article states that 21-22 forwards show good production in the NHL, but don't get played because their defense is under-developed, aka they aren't ready.

 

Being NHL-ready and peaking are not at all the same.



#129 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 17 August 2014 - 01:32 PM

 
Being NHL-ready and peaking are not at all the same.


I agree. Let me revise my opinion.

I don't think that just bc a player is ready and can or could play means he should. Playing them later, closer to their peak, is better for their all-around long-term development. Hence why I'm equating readiness with peak age.

#130 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,154 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 07:25 PM

Any more comments about true fans, spolied fans, etc. will guarantee your post will be deleted and could result in suspension.  LAST WARNING.  

 

The topic is Ken Holland.  Not how spoiled Wings fans are.



#131 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:13 PM

"Tanking" implies losing on purpose.  Whether it's players underperforming, coaches using the wrong players or strategies, or management making moves to make the team worse, it's done with the intent of finishing lower in the standings and getting a higher draft pick.  Draft lotteries were invented to reduce the chances of this strategy working.  It was done more often in other sports, where high draft picks almost always become impact players right away.  The Indianapolis Colts' "Suck for Luck" season is one of the most recent examples.
The Red Wings did not tank to get Steve Yzerman, and there are two obvious reasons why: 1, the Wings had been terrible for almost two decades, making the playoffs twice in 17 years and only winning one series.  They didn't lose on purpose in "82-'83, they just couldn't win.  2, the Wings were heavily targeting local product Pat LaFontaine with the #4 pick, but he went #3 to the Islanders.  Yzerman was the consolation prize.

 
Tanking has been around for much longer than salary caps.  I think it's tougher to do today, between the cap and roster/player movement limitations.
 
Also, I think your "ready age" numbers are considerably off.  http://www.sbnation....es-age-analysis



So the colts losing the sexond best qb in football to injury had nothing to do with why they were bad. Teams have rebuilds like buffalo but even if they're bad I wouldn't consider it tanking. No coach or players would ever intentionally lose.

#132 joshy207

joshy207

    Black Ace

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts
  • Location:Berkley, MI

Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:27 PM

So the colts losing the sexond best qb in football to injury had nothing to do with why they were bad. Teams have rebuilds like buffalo but even if they're bad I wouldn't consider it tanking. No coach or players would ever intentionally lose.

 

The Colts losing Manning was the major reason they were bad.  They also knew being a bad team would give them the chance to draft Luck.  I'm not saying they did blow games, but a good chunk of their fans certainly had no problem with the idea.

 

You don't think players or coaches have never intentionally lost or done something else under the table?  Nobody has ever shaved points, fixed games, etc?  That has happened.  It probably happens more often than we will ever know about.  And I'm certain some front offices have urged coaches to not put forth the best product a time or two.


I agree. Let me revise my opinion.

I don't think that just bc a player is ready and can or could play means he should. Playing them later, closer to their peak, is better for their all-around long-term development. Hence why I'm equating readiness with peak age.

 

That makes more sense.  I feel a little differently... depending on the player, keeping him in the minors longer can hinder his progress.  Some players need the challenge of the higher level to continue to develop their game.  The trick is figuring out which players those are.



#133 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:45 PM

 

The Colts losing Manning was the major reason they were bad.  They also knew being a bad team would give them the chance to draft Luck.  I'm not saying they did blow games, but a good chunk of their fans certainly had no problem with the idea.

 

You don't think players or coaches have never intentionally lost or done something else under the table?  Nobody has ever shaved points, fixed games, etc?  That has happened.  It probably happens more often than we will ever know about.  And I'm certain some front offices have urged coaches to not put forth the best product a time or two.


 

That makes more sense.  I feel a little differently... depending on the player, keeping him in the minors longer can hinder his progress.  Some players need the challenge of the higher level to continue to develop their game.  The trick is figuring out which players those are.

 

 

Right. There are exceptions to the rule. Like Mantha. I think LGW collectively expects him to be ready next season if not this one. He'll be a fresh 21 then.



#134 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:48 PM

 
The Colts losing Manning was the major reason they were bad.  They also knew being a bad team would give them the chance to draft Luck.  I'm not saying they did blow games, but a good chunk of their fans certainly had no problem with the idea.
 
You don't think players or coaches have never intentionally lost or done something else under the table?  Nobody has ever shaved points, fixed games, etc?  That has happened.  It probably happens more often than we will ever know about.  And I'm certain some front offices have urged coaches to not put forth the best product a time or two.

 
That makes more sense.  I feel a little differently... depending on the player, keeping him in the minors longer can hinder his progress.  Some players need the challenge of the higher level to continue to develop their game.  The trick is figuring out which players those are.


Shaving points is different. But I do believe that no player or coach would intentionally lose just so they could draft a certain player.

Now teams rebuilding is rebuilding. Trading away expensive players to save money and allow the kids to play can be seen as tanking but to
Me that's just the proper way to rebuild.

#135 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 18 August 2014 - 12:02 AM

Shaving points is different. But I do believe that no player or coach would intentionally lose just so they could draft a certain player.

Now teams rebuilding is rebuilding. Trading away expensive players to save money and allow the kids to play can be seen as tanking but to
Me that's just the proper way to rebuild.

 

That's not at all why teams tank. I live in Buffalo and Pegula has a ton of money, and he is pretty dedicated to making the Sabres a wining team. He's not trading away guys like Miller or Vanek or Ott to save money, he has more than enough, enough to buy the BIlls on top of the Sabres.. He's not happy with guys like Grigorenko playing young and early. The organization wishes they had other player to force him down, as his transition from the QMJHL to the NHL has not gone well. The only young player they have thrust into the league early that has excelled is Zemgod, more commonly referred to as Zemgus Girgensons. He's trading away guys like Vanek and Miller so that they can continue their illustrious careers in a better place than were Buffalo currently is, and also because IT'S GONNA GET HIM MCDAVID. It has zero to do with dollars spent and kids playing. Most buffalo kids are farrrrrr from ready.



#136 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 18 August 2014 - 03:10 AM

 
That's not at all why teams tank. I live in Buffalo and Pegula has a ton of money, and he is pretty dedicated to making the Sabres a wining team. He's not trading away guys like Miller or Vanek or Ott to save money, he has more than enough, enough to buy the BIlls on top of the Sabres.. He's not happy with guys like Grigorenko playing young and early. The organization wishes they had other player to force him down, as his transition from the QMJHL to the NHL has not gone well. The only young player they have thrust into the league early that has excelled is Zemgod, more commonly referred to as Zemgus Girgensons. He's trading away guys like Vanek and Miller so that they can continue their illustrious careers in a better place than were Buffalo currently is, and also because IT'S GONNA GET HIM MCDAVID. It has zero to do with dollars spent and kids playing. Most buffalo kids are farrrrrr from ready.



Well there's many reasons why older expensive players are traded away I only listed two. And there's no sure thing. There's multiple teams in on for mcdavid.

#137 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,943 posts

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:42 AM

Good move.

 

I'm still not really sure what Holland could have done since 2009 to make things any better. We're rebuilding through the draft. With the Cap, and how over inflated the UFA market is, it's the way to go. We haven't missed out on a thing by not signing guys like Ehrhoff, Clarkson, and Wisniewski, or Suter or Parise to 13 years.


Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#138 The Secret

The Secret

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 18 August 2014 - 07:43 AM

Although I have not liked some of Hollands moves or non-moves over the years, some I can never ever let go of (Hossa), I think the track record over all speaks for itself. He is a pioneer IMO. Its been said numerous times before but we are frikkin spoiled. Completely spoiled rotten! We are lucky to have Holland, we are lucky to have Babcock, Extremely lucky to be owned by the Illitches,  and we are lucky to have seen 23 straight years of playoffs (no matter how crappy the last few have been). There are plenty of team out there that would be thrilled to see their team make the post season and be BBQ'd in the first round just to see their team in a meaningful game. NONE of this happens without Holland! This team has lost some big time players in the past few years whose impact could never be measured in advance, we've lost how many man games to injuries?, Had how many rookie's? AND had quite a few crap roster moves/non-moves and yet 23 years and counting, a stocked cupboard of young talent and an extremely bright future that will NOT take us blowing balls at the bottom of the league for 5 years before we can start to bubble back to the top!!!! Holland is in uncharted waters and we will see how stealthy he is. Next up is to lock down Babs and DK, and he will locked them both for a good amount of time and watch as we begin to mature and compete again wityhout having to eat crap at the bottom for a while! Thanks Kenny! Fans need to realize that the days of Red WIngs sailing through to championships is long over and the next generation of Cup Champions in Detroit will be honed from within, won't dominate as before but will cut more evenly with 4 lines.



#139 The Secret

The Secret

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, ON

Posted 18 August 2014 - 07:55 AM

So the colts losing the sexond best qb in football to injury had nothing to do with why they were bad. Teams have rebuilds like buffalo but even if they're bad I wouldn't consider it tanking. No coach or players would ever intentionally lose.

 

I'm with you... I don't think any NHL or NFL team purposely TANKS anything. A whole organization intentionally tanking is like a whole organization all unanimously saying I suck and am completely incompetant so please fire me. No way that happens, I will never believe it.

 

Who ever mentioned the Suck for Luck campaign obviously knows zero about the Colts and Manning. That entire team was built around Manning, who is not the second best QB in the league but THE best, and losing him was something like what we saw when we lost Lidstrom. NO ONE in the league could have jumped in to fill in for Manning NO ONE. There was no one capable of doing what Manning does. That  Colts team also was dealing with alot of other injuries as well... they didn't suck for Luck they just plain sucked! Just like no one in the NHL could ever step in for Lidstrom and losing him devastated our team more then we will ever know.



#140 DickieDunn

DickieDunn

    http://redwingsandotherthings.wordpress.com/

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Location:Belding

Posted 18 August 2014 - 08:39 AM

Players and coaches won't intentionally lose but management can and does dump players to make it more likely they will get a high puck. It's dangerous though. You never know when that cant miss player ends up like Stuart Cleary or Staal, good players but but worth their draft positions.

Edited by DickieDunn, 18 August 2014 - 08:40 AM.

Oh this young man has had a very trying rookie season, with the litigation, the notoriety, his subsequent deportation to Canada and that country's refusal to accept him, well, I guess that's more than most 21-year-olds can handle... Ogie Ogilthorpe!






Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Signed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users