Ken Holland contract extension watch

[LeftWinger 5,132]

That is why I started my post by saying I would rather hire from outside. We need someone not loyal to these players that Holland just cannot seem to trade.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

https://www.thescore.com/news/1337009

This is a good if not depressing read.

Luszczyszyn is one hell of a name to spell.  Even around hockey circles that's a bit too much.  

1 hour ago, F.Michael said:

Pretty much sums things up, and it's why Detroit needs to rebuild sooner than later, but I get the impression Holland won't be the GM when it begins.

 

The roster is a failure on all fronts.  Not many "CORE" players as the article puts it, too many overpaid players, 10 players with no-trade clauses.  If Kenny was trying to sabotage this organization he couldn't be doing a better job the last few seasons.  

[DickieDunn 2,571]

STEALTH TANK

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

If Kenny was trying to sabotage this organization he couldn't be doing a better job the last few seasons.  

I'm telling you, he's been colluding with the Russians. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by kickazz

[DickieDunn 2,571]

On 8/3/2017 at 7:11 AM, Dabura said:

We have Luke Witkowski; everything is going to be fine.

Keep calm and Witkowski

 

[LeftWinger 5,132]

Mike Witkowski?

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by LeftWinger

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

On 8/1/2017 at 9:52 PM, DickieDunn said:

He was a great GM post cap too, what he did transitioning from no cap to cap was nothing short of genius.  But he stopped trying to adapt and thinks that because rebuilding on the fly worked once it will for sure work again, and he started overvaluing role players.

Fair enough, he was good up until about 2010 and then the wheels started to fall off a bit.

Don't forget, players like Lidstrom and Datsyuk can really mask a poor GM.

[kickazz 5,459]

33 minutes ago, Never_Retire_Steve said:

Don't forget, players like Lidstrom and Datsyuk can really mask a poor GM.

The GM that helped draft Datsyuk masked him.

Right. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by kickazz

[Echolalia 2,961]

becoming a nonplayoff team is an inevitability

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, Never_Retire_Steve said:

Fair enough, he was good up until about 2010 and then the wheels started to fall off a bit.

Don't forget, players like Lidstrom and Datsyuk can really mask a poor GM.

It sounds to me that you are saying winning = good GM, losing = bad GM. What moves in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were you upset with?

The reason why I ask, is because there are plenty of things to criticize Holland over, but having your team go on a down slide after being contenders for 20 years is not one of them. EVERY team goes on a down swing, the fact it took us so long is an example of our FO doing a good job, not a bad one. 

IMO there are only two major  mistakes that Holland makes.

1) He is way to tentative to make a trade, sometimes you have to take a risk. 

2) He puts too much value on vets. I agree that vets are crucial as with no vets you become a joke like Edmonton this past decade. But Holland needs to sometimes let vets walk (ie. A Helm situation) and give a kid a shot instead. I am just using Helm as an example, I actually really like Helm, but Holland just keeps signing vets when he should be allowing kids to play. Plus, having all vets keeps you at the cap, and keeping you at the cap can restrict your ability to pull off certain trades.

The second part is just untrue. A GM's job is to acquire and retain high end talent, and place them with good secondary talent. Holland did that for a very very long time. To say that the talent he acquired and retained masked him being a poor GM goes against the fundamentals of what his job is. The fact that he was able to acquire Datsyuk and Zetterberg, and then get them to stay along with Lidstrom their entire career's is part of what made him a great GM.

There is no denying that Holland has dug himself into a hole, if he is still a good GM he will climb out, if he's not he won't. Simple. Unless of course the players he acquires moving forward do really well and mask his abilities again 

Edited August 18, 2017 by kliq

[DickieDunn 2,571]

7 hours ago, kliq said:

It sounds to me that you are saying winning = good GM, losing = bad GM. What moves in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were you upset with?

The reason why I ask, is because there are plenty of things to criticize Holland over, but having your team go on a down slide after being contenders for 20 years is not one of them. EVERY team goes on a down swing, the fact it took us so long is an example of our FO doing a good job, not a bad one. 

IMO there are only two major  mistakes that Holland makes.

1) He is way to tentative to make a trade, sometimes you have to take a risk. 

2) He puts too much value on vets. I agree that vets are crucial as with no vets you become a joke like Edmonton this past decade. But Holland needs to sometimes let vets walk (ie. A Helm situation) and give a kid a shot instead. I am just using Helm as an example, I actually really like Helm, but Holland just keeps signing vets when he should be allowing kids to play. Plus, having all vets keeps you at the cap, and keeping you at the cap can restrict your ability to pull off certain trades.

The second part is just untrue. A GM's job is to acquire and retain high end talent, and place them with good secondary talent. Holland did that for a very very long time. To say that the talent he acquired and retained masked him being a poor GM goes against the fundamentals of what his job is. The fact that he was able to acquire Datsyuk and Zetterberg, and then get them to stay along with Lidstrom their entire career's is part of what made him a great GM.

There is no denying that Holland has dug himself into a hole, if he is still a good GM he will climb out, if he's not he won't. Simple. Unless of course the players he acquires moving forward do really well and mask his abilities again 

points 1 and 2 are dead on.  He used to let vets walk and make trades if he needed to.  Now he doesn't.  I'd love to be a fly on his wall and figure out what changed.

[kliq 3,763]

13 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

points 1 and 2 are dead on.  He used to let vets walk and make trades if he needed to.  Now he doesn't.  I'd love to be a fly on his wall and figure out what changed.

If I had to guess, I would say it's due to the cap and how crappy free agency is. Back in the early 2000's, if he let someone walk or traded away a player that was good, he could always fall back on free agency, or make a trade where they just absorb salary. Not that he can't do that, I think he is scared to make a move.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hateleads to suffering.

[Buppy 1,720]

8 hours ago, kliq said:

If I had to guess, I would say it's due to the cap and how crappy free agency is. Back in the early 2000's, if he let someone walk or traded away a player that was good, he could always fall back on free agency, or make a trade where they just absorb salary. Not that he can't do that, I think he is scared to make a move.

It is the situation that has changed more than anything. plus a healthy dose of exaggerating past activity.

Holland has never been all that active trading. He has tended to be very patient, and most of his moves have been fairly minor tweaking. Augmenting existing talent rather than shuffling it around. Fine tuning rather than trying to build.

He made a few big trades, but under vastly different circumstances. In 99, aiming for a 3-peat, it made sense to trade multiple 1sts for a 37yo Chelios. Now it would not make sense to do the same for Chara or even Keith. Looking to get back on top in 02, giving up Kozlov (who had been underwhelming the previous two years) and a 1st for Hasek was an easy choice (especially considering the UFA forwards that year included Robitaille, Hull, Mogilny, and Turgeon...), but Nyquist and a 1st for Lundqvist now would make far less sense. A 1st+ for Lang back then is better move than a 1st+ for Pavelski now. 

[kliq 3,763]

7 hours ago, Buppy said:

It is the situation that has changed more than anything. plus a healthy dose of exaggerating past activity.

Holland has never been all that active trading. He has tended to be very patient, and most of his moves have been fairly minor tweaking. Augmenting existing talent rather than shuffling it around. Fine tuning rather than trying to build.

He made a few big trades, but under vastly different circumstances. In 99, aiming for a 3-peat, it made sense to trade multiple 1sts for a 37yo Chelios. Now it would not make sense to do the same for Chara or even Keith. Looking to get back on top in 02, giving up Kozlov (who had been underwhelming the previous two years) and a 1st for Hasek was an easy choice (especially considering the UFA forwards that year included Robitaille, Hull, Mogilny, and Turgeon...), but Nyquist and a 1st for Lundqvist now would make far less sense. A 1st+ for Lang back then is better move than a 1st+ for Pavelski now. 

Agreed with the bold, which was essentially my point. I get that it is a lot harder to trade now then it used to be because of the cap and the mind set of teams. I also get that back then it made more sense for us to trade then it does now, but @Buppy there is no denying that Holland trades less then he used as he doesnt make ANY trades with roster players now a days. 

In all honesty, when is the last time a roster player has been dealt? Was it Kozlov in 2001?

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Here's a list of every trade Holland has ever made.  The last significant roster player moved was indeed Kozlov back in June of 2001, other than some pending UFA's recently. 

 

http://nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_GM/Ken_Holland/138

Edited August 19, 2017 by DickieDunn

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, kliq said:

Agreed with the bold, which was essentially my point. I get that it is a lot harder to trade now then it used to be because of the cap and the mind set of teams. I also get that back then it made more sense for us to trade then it does now, but @Buppy there is no denying that Holland trades less then he used as he doesnt make ANY trades with roster players now a days. 

In all honesty, when is the last time a roster player has been dealt? Was it Kozlov in 2001?

8 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Here's a list of every trade Holland has ever made.  The last significant roster player moved was indeed Kozlov back in June of 2001, other than some pending UFA's recently. 

http://nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_GM/Ken_Holland/138

Not counting the deadline sale this year, or fringe players, or Jason Williams, Kozlov is the only roster player he's ever traded. Saying he doesn't do it anymore is like saying the U.S. doesn't use atomic weapons anymore. There's technically a degree of accuracy, but it's misleading.

 

[kliq 3,763]

38 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Not counting the deadline sale this year, or fringe players, or Jason Williams, Kozlov is the only roster player he's ever traded. Saying he doesn't do it anymore is like saying the U.S. doesn't use atomic weapons anymore. There's technically a degree of accuracy, but it's misleading.

Bottom line is that he was willing to make moves. Now that you can't really make major moves in free agency, it would be nice to see him pull off a major trade.

Are you against my point? Or are you just trying to find flaws in my argument? What would you like to see from Holland moving forward? I would like to see a trade for a top pairing D-man and a couple contracts being dumped. Sure, easier said then done. But as a GM you have to be creative and that is what I want to see from Holland.

I am not a poster who bashes Holland for everything he does, I think Holland takes a lot of s*** for things that really arent his fault, but I also think that sometimes he doesn't do himself any favors. I think if he could pull off a trade for a legit top D-man, it would be huge and would change the minds of a lot of posters/fans in regards to his abilities to lead this team moving forward.

[Buppy 1,720]

7 hours ago, kliq said:

Bottom line is that he was willing to make moves. Now that you can't really make major moves in free agency, it would be nice to see him pull off a major trade.

Are you against my point? Or are you just trying to find flaws in my argument? What would you like to see from Holland moving forward? I would like to see a trade for a top pairing D-man and a couple contracts being dumped. Sure, easier said then done. But as a GM you have to be creative and that is what I want to see from Holland.

I am not a poster who bashes Holland for everything he does, I think Holland takes a lot of s*** for things that really arent his fault, but I also think that sometimes he doesn't do himself any favors. I think if he could pull off a trade for a legit top D-man, it would be huge and would change the minds of a lot of posters/fans in regards to his abilities to lead this team moving forward.

To start, I don't think you can conclude anything about "willingness", nor that Holland has changed his philosophy. Circumstances are completely different, as is the goal you're trying to achieve. Using a thing he did one time in the past to conclude that his failure to do a completely different thing today must be the result of unwillingness is a poor argument.

If your point is just, "it would be nice to see a major trade", I can't really disagree. But if your point is, "Holland could fix the team with a big trade if he wanted to, he's just too afraid now", and your evidence is, "remember that one time when he traded Kozlov", then yeah, I would argue against that.

[kliq 3,763]

18 minutes ago, Buppy said:

To start, I don't think you can conclude anything about "willingness", nor that Holland has changed his philosophy. Circumstances are completely different, as is the goal you're trying to achieve. Using a thing he did one time in the past to conclude that his failure to do a completely different thing today must be the result of unwillingness is a poor argument.

If your point is just, "it would be nice to see a major trade", I can't really disagree. But if your point is, "Holland could fix the team with a big trade if he wanted to, he's just too afraid now", and your evidence is, "remember that one time when he traded Kozlov", then yeah, I would argue against that.

I will say this, when I first posted, I was thinking of all the trades we did in the 90's (ie. Shanny trade, Larionov trade etc.) forgetting they weren't actually made by Holland. My bad there.

As far as the bold goes, I am not saying either. What I am saying is I would like to see Holland a bit more active.

With that being said, can you answer what I asked you? My question was "What would you like to see from Holland moving forward?" How do you think he should approach things in regards to bringing us back to being contenders? Its easy to point out flaws in the opinions of others, can you come up with a solution? 

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, kliq said:

...With that being said, can you answer what I asked you? My question was "What would you like to see from Holland moving forward?" How do you think he should approach things in regards to bringing us back to being contenders? Its easy to point out flaws in the opinions of others, can you come up with a solution? 

That's just the thing; there really isn't a solution. Any strategy could work, any strategy could fail. "Add talent" is about as specific an answer as I could give. I would add "Get lucky" to that, but if you could do that on purpose it wouldn't be luck.

[kickazz 5,459]

Well at least he doesn't pretend to be a computer GM, gotta give him that much Kliq.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

On 8/4/2017 at 8:52 AM, LeftWinger said:

Mike Witkowski?

Does he wink or blink?

19 hours ago, kliq said:

Bottom line is that he was willing to make moves. Now that you can't really make major moves in free agency, it would be nice to see him pull off a major trade.

Are you against my point? Or are you just trying to find flaws in my argument? What would you like to see from Holland moving forward? I would like to see a trade for a top pairing D-man and a couple contracts being dumped. Sure, easier said then done. But as a GM you have to be creative and that is what I want to see from Holland.

I am not a poster who bashes Holland for everything he does, I think Holland takes a lot of s*** for things that really arent his fault, but I also think that sometimes he doesn't do himself any favors. I think if he could pull off a trade for a legit top D-man, it would be huge and would change the minds of a lot of posters/fans in regards to his abilities to lead this team moving forward.

Contracts dumped in order to do what?  Just to have extra space, or make some other move?  Holland has consistently shown that he uses whatever extra space he has, and sometimes then some, in order to sign a veteran.  So would giving up a third round pick and a 2nd tier prospect to convince someone to take Ericsson be worth it if it meant he signed another 30 year old defenseman to a 4 or 5 year deal that takes him right back to the cap?

[kliq 3,763]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

Contracts dumped in order to do what?  Just to have extra space, or make some other move?  Holland has consistently shown that he uses whatever extra space he has, and sometimes then some, in order to sign a veteran.  So would giving up a third round pick and a 2nd tier prospect to convince someone to take Ericsson be worth it if it meant he signed another 30 year old defenseman to a 4 or 5 year deal that takes him right back to the cap?

So are you disputing my point of dumping some contracts? Or are you just ranting against Holland?

[DickieDunn 2,571]

9 minutes ago, kliq said:

So are you disputing my point of dumping some contracts? Or are you just ranting against Holland?

I'm asking you a simple question.  What would be the point of moving a contract like Ericsson's when it will probably take an asset to do it?