Be honest..

[shocky2002 36]

?

[krsmith17 7,191]

Given those two options, I think most (if not everyone) would pick option 2... the problem is, there's an option in between the two extremes...

[marcaractac 3,963]

The thing is, with the stockpiling of talent Holland has done over the last few years, this team could be a lottery team for 1 or 2years and be right back in the hunt. The depth is there, talent is there, we just lack that elite talent. Draft one or two guys in the top 10 (or even top 5), and the assets are there to make the moved needed to fix the defense. 

To sum things up, I'd be fully on board seeing the team suck for a shot at Nolan Patrick. If the streak ended in any of the last few years, I'd have been heartbroken. This season I just feel ready for it. As a fan, I am within a window where I am prepared for a basement season and a clean slate. This is because the alternative is to keep the streak going and be stuck in mediocrity for a bunch more years. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by marcaractac

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Given those two options, I think most (if not everyone) would pick option 2... the problem is, there's an option in between the two extremes...

What he said. You are essentially saying that tanking = cup which is just not true. I feel like a broken record, but for every Pittsburgh/Chicago/LA, there are probably another 10 that tanked and just continued to suck.

The other issue i have with tanking, is if those lottery picks or even top 5 picks become flops, you are right back to where you started except you have even less and you have established a losing culture. Anyone here who is a Lions fan can attest to that. You are completely relying on a couple kids and are hoping they end up being the next Crosby/Ovie/McDavid, when fact of the matter is half of the top 5 picks do not become franchise guys.

Also, if we were to dump a lot of our vets, I could still see us being a non lottery team.

 

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

Tanking for 8 years?? lol

I don't even know what to say anymore...

[Donaldjr2448 43]

Tanking for Draft picks can sometimes be a gamble too. Look how long it took Edmonton to finally land some picks that actually worked out. There are only a few Dylan Larkin's. McDavids, and Tyler Halls that can come into the league as a rookie and contribute.

With that, I am willing to miss the playoffs for a few years if I knew the organization was "Rebuilding". Like someone else mentioned, the talent is already in place, we just lack the elite talent. Perhaps a draft of an elite player isn't the answer, but maybe a trade for one might be a better option.

Personally, I think the change needs to be made in the front office. If guys are playing in Grand Rapids for 4 to 5 years (mainly the defensemen) and cannot make their way into the league within that time frame and contribute, then perhaps the organization has an issue.

Maybe I am wrong, but just my two cents.

[kickazz 5,459]

dam voted for wrong one, can i not change my vote in new forums?

[Manoir 70]

2 hours ago, kliq said:

What he said. You are essentially saying that tanking = cup which is just not true. I feel like a broken record, but for every Pittsburgh/Chicago/LA, there are probably another 10 that tanked and just continued to suck.

 

 

Name a team that has won the Cup recently without at least a top 2 pick in their lineup.

[Richdg 267]

All of the recent SC winners and losers have top 5 picks on their teams. Other teams on the rise have top 5 picks-Panthers are a good example. Of course there is still the Oilers.... But most teams do get it right and head back up after being really bad. That happens in every sport and is the stated purpose of the reverse draft and salary caps.

 

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, Manoir said:

Name a team that has won the Cup recently without at least a top 2 pick in their lineup.

Considering only 4 teams have won a cup since 2009, not exactly a bold statement to make. Obviously top picks were huge for Chicago & Pittsburgh and LA got a high pick in DD, but Boston pretty much did it without a top pick. They had Seguin but he wasn't a big contributor, and they got him from a dumb trade by the Leafs anyways, not tanking.

Not to mention we did it in 2008, but I'm guessing you are going to say that is two far back.

Edited November 14, 2016 by kliq

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, Richdg said:

All of the recent SC winners and losers have top 5 picks on their teams. Other teams on the rise have top 5 picks-Panthers are a good example. Of course there is still the Oilers.... But most teams do get it right and head back up after being really bad. That happens in every sport and is the stated purpose of the reverse draft and salary caps.

 

Really? Most teams do it right? I wont even bring up the joke that was the Oilers pre McDavid as you even mention that, but I have a hard time believing that most teams do it right. How many top picks over the last decade have teams like Arizona, Columbus, Carolina, Calgary, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Buffalo, Colorado, Dallas, Florida, Minny, NYI, Toronto etc. had and not done anything more then what the Wings have accomplished (post 2009).

Have any of these teams even made the 3rd round in the last decade? Other then Arizona, I don't think so.

Sure Dallas is doing well now (but not via top 5 picks), and Florida appears to be better, but none of these other teams have done anything of significance. My point stands, for every Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA out there, there are teams that have not only failed, but been bad for a long long time. Tanking generally fails.

Also, saying that all the cup winners/losers have a top 5 pick on their roster is not exactly a super bold statement either. Most teams have a top 5 pick on their roster as over a 10 year period their are literally 50 of them in the league. Even we have a top 5 pick on our roster in Vanek.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by kliq

[kliq 3,763]

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.

[xault 272]

Tanking isn't going to fix the wings problems. Management is the Red Wings problem. Bad contract after bad contract. Lack of trading and we when do, it's a trade to keep alive a Streak not worth keeping alive with our current team. Tag on bad scouting at the very least when it comes to Dman.

We are paying:

Z until 2021, Franzen until 2020, Ericsson until 2020, Helm until 2021, Abs until 2023, Nielsen until 2022.

All these contracts hurt us. Granted Z and Franzen contracts, mainly Z was worth it at the time, they hurt us bad now. Not a signal one of theses players will play up to said contract. And they are all getting paid a lot. This is why we are paying up to the cap, but play like a floor team.

Tanking does nothing to fix this problem, you are than hoping you'll find a Kopitar/Doughty, Crosby/Letang, Teows/Keith, Bergeron/Chara, Datz/Lidstrom ... see the common factor here. Than you need to build around them. But you also need the cap space, which we won't have. You need a clear cut 1#Center and 1#Dman to even think about getting back to being a contender. And not everyone of theses players were taken in the top 5.

Edited November 14, 2016 by xault

[kliq 3,763]

2 minutes ago, xault said:

Tanking isn't going to fix the wings problems. Management is the Red Wings problem. Bad contract after bad contract. Lack of trading and we when do, it's a trade to keep alive a Streak not worth keeping alive with our current team.

We are paying:

Z until 2021, Franzen until 2020, Ericsson until 2020, Helm until 2021, Abs until 2023, Nielsen until 2022.

All these contracts hurt us. Granted Z and Franzen contracts, mainly Z was worth it at the time, they hurt us bad now. Not a signal one of theses players will play up to said contract. And they are all getting paid a lot. This is why we are paying up to the cap, but play like a floor team.

Tanking does nothing to fix this problem, you are than hoping you'll find a Kopitar/Doughty, Crosby/Letang, Teows/Keith, Bergeron/Chara, Datz/Lidstrom ... see the common factor here. Than you need to build around them. But you also need the cap space, which we won't have. You need a clear cut 1#Center and 1#Dman to even think about getting back to being a contender. And not everyone of theses players were taken in the top 5.

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.

[xault 272]

I would agree with you, but I do not believe in our current GM to able to make said trades or moves. Red Wings always appear to come up with one reason or another why we can't do a trade or move... Like kicking tiers, or hand shack deals.

Edited November 14, 2016 by xault

[Manoir 70]

1 hour ago, kliq said:

Considering only 4 teams have won a cup since 2009, not exactly a bold statement to make. Obviously top picks were huge for Chicago & Pittsburgh and LA got a high pick in DD, but Boston pretty much did it without a top pick. They had Seguin but he wasn't a big contributor, and they got him from a dumb trade by the Leafs anyways, not tanking.

Not to mention we did it in 2008, but I'm guessing you are going to say that is two far back.

That's kind of the point, even in the era of parity only a handful of teams have recently won-and what they share in common is high draft picks. And Seguin had 7 pts in 13 games, not insignificant. Yes, he was acquired via trade, but the point is having top picks in your lineup is really important. No, it does not guarantee anything, but it makes winning the Cup a lot easier.

[kliq 3,763]

6 minutes ago, Manoir said:

That's kind of the point, even in the era of parity only a handful of teams have recently won-and what they share in common is high draft picks. And Seguin had 7 pts in 13 games, not insignificant. Yes, he was acquired via trade, but the point is having top picks in your lineup is really important. No, it does not guarantee anything, but it makes winning the Cup a lot easier.

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.

[Manoir 70]

15 minutes ago, kliq said:

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.

And those 3 teams are the only ones recently with multiple Cup wins, do you think it's just a coincidence that they also happen to have very high picks on their roster? 

 

Seguin did not play the first 2 rounds, and his 4 pt game was game 2 with Boston down 1-0 at home. If I recall, he was put in the lineup with Bergeron out. But let's say he did not help in any meaningful way, I'm not saying every year a team that has tanked or has a high pick on its roster will win, but it makes it MUCH easier.

[kliq 3,763]

20 minutes ago, Manoir said:

And those 3 teams are the only ones recently with multiple Cup wins, do you think it's just a coincidence that they also happen to have very high picks on their roster? 

 

Seguin did not play the first 2 rounds, and his 4 pt game was game 2 with Boston down 1-0 at home. If I recall, he was put in the lineup with Bergeron out. But let's say he did not help in any meaningful way, I'm not saying every year a team that has tanked or has a high pick on its roster will win, but it makes it MUCH easier.

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.

[Krayzie_Bone 58]

The team just needs some solid defenseman

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Yes, I want to make the playoffs, again and again and again.  Once you make it, you never know where it will take you.  You can't win the cup if you don't make the playoffs.

[LeftWinger 5,036]

I don't like tanking for any reason. If we continue to rely ok on broken and mediocre players the playoff thing will take care of itself. If Holland doesn't make a deal for at least 1 higher end D man, even when Vanek and AA are back, it's not going to matter.

We are more competitive with Vanek I'm the lineup, but that won't be enough because the D is horrible andthe goalie cannot sustain their level of play all year.

You have to clear cap space, acquire a top 2 D man, Sproul must play. Hope and pray when Vanek and AA return, they keep their pace.

The only reason I wouldn't mind missing the playoffs for a couple of seasons, we'd more than likely rid ourselves of Holland and his stale philosophy.

I do not want to miss for 8 years for any reason. I honestly do not trust Holland with a lottery pick.

Edited November 14, 2016 by LeftWinger

[marcaractac 3,963]

9 hours ago, kliq said:

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.

 

This is actually a good thing. Just missing the playoffs increases the chance of a top 3 pick. 

[Echolalia 2,961]

9 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

This is actually a good thing. Just missing the playoffs increases the chance of a top 3 pick. 

Could you imagine the fury that would be unleashed if the Wings were to finally miss the playoffs (by one point) only to get the overall top pick in the draft?

[GMRwings1983 8,799]

If we're assuming tanking will equal Cup (and that assumption is the whole point of this thread), then I'm still choosing option one.  Tanking for 8 years would suck.

All the posts about how tanking doesn't necessarily equal a Cup are pointless.  We're talking hypotheticals here.  So would you guys be willing to tank if you knew we'd win another Cup in 10 years?  I wouldn't.