Ken Holland contract extension watch

[kliq 3,763]

4 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

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?

Well for one I would do it if nobody goes on IR to make room for AA.

Secondly, I have been very vocal about making a trade for a player like a Trouba (doesn't have to be him) and having more cap space gives you the flexibility to pull off a trade like that because you are able to absorb cap if the other team is looking at dumping cap with an asset. (I realize Holland is unlikely to do this, but I am saying what I would do).

Now if things work themselves out for this year, I would hold off until next year as that is when I want Holland to make a move.

Thirdly, I would like to take a run a JT because I believe we have very good secondary scoring, but lack elite talent. JT is elite talent. I know your counter will be "Why would JT want to come here?" Well, if you are a GM in the NHL and you think that way, you are in the wrong business.You can't not try because you are scared of failing. Think of a 1-2-3-4 of JT-Z-Larkin-whoever......that changes things big time especially if Larkin really breaks out.

Speaking of Larkin, he and Mantha's contracts are due next year. My worry is IF they truly break out, we may be in trouble cap wise if we make other moves. Draisaitl just signed for 8.5mil, not that I see either of the kids getting that, but if they put up say 60 (my personal ceiling for them for this year) they could demand anything between 4-6, add in JT likely wanting 10+, and a d-man likely costing something, I want cap space.

Even if you argument is "Holland wont do any of this" none of us even have a clue if he will be here in 1 year. More the reason why I want cap space.

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

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.

So no opinion, I guess you can't ever be wrong that way. Much easier to just point out flaws in other's.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

28 minutes ago, kliq said:

Well for one I would do it if nobody goes on IR to make room for AA.

Secondly, I have been very vocal about making a trade for a player like a Trouba (doesn't have to be him) and having more cap space gives you the flexibility to pull off a trade like that because you are able to absorb cap if the other team is looking at dumping cap with an asset. (I realize Holland is unlikely to do this, but I am saying what I would do).

Now if things work themselves out for this year, I would hold off until next year as that is when I want Holland to make a move.

Thirdly, I would like to take a run a JT because I believe we have very good secondary scoring, but lack elite talent. JT is elite talent. I know your counter will be "Why would JT want to come here?" Well, if you are a GM in the NHL and you think that way, you are in the wrong business.You can't not try because you are scared of failing. Think of a 1-2-3-4 of JT-Z-Larkin-whoever......that changes things big time especially if Larkin really breaks out.

Speaking of Larkin, he and Mantha's contracts are due next year. My worry is IF they truly break out, we may be in trouble cap wise if we make other moves. Draisaitl just signed for 8.5mil, not that I see either of the kids getting that, but if they put up say 60 (my personal ceiling for them for this year) they could demand anything between 4-6, add in JT likely wanting 10+, and a d-man likely costing something, I want cap space.

Even if you argument is "Holland wont do any of this" none of us even have a clue if he will be here in 1 year. More the reason why I want cap space.

 

No, he won't do any of that, and there is no reason to think that he won't still be with the Wings after this coming season, either as GM or as President with his handpicked replacement at GM who will continue to run things the way they are now.  You're right, we don't "know," but we can be pretty damn sure he will be.

As far as needing cap room for future signings, it can be cleared at that time, potentially easier than it could be now.  Howard's contract is up in 2 years, he might be easier to move on an expiring deal to a team that needs a stop gap in net until a younger player is ready to be #1.  Mrazek won't be back unless he rebounds.  Sheahan's deal expires next summer.  The other players will be one year closer to an expired deal and it would be easier to live with 1 less year of retained salary or 2 fewer years of a buyout penalty.  Plus, there's a very real chance that either the league or the PA will opt out of the current CBA in 2 years, which will probably result in a lowered cap and a round of compliance buyouts.

As far as Tavares signing here, it's a pipe dream.  It's no different than "well, we'll go hard after Suter and fix the defense, or Stamkos is going to be a free agent, they can throw a max contract at him," or whoever else people think will be a magic cure.  Do you try?  Yup.  But there's a difference between being realistic about the odds of getting him (the why would he sign here argument) and pinning your plans on getting him.

[kliq 3,763]

15 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

No, he won't do any of that, and there is no reason to think that he won't still be with the Wings after this coming season, either as GM or as President with his handpicked replacement at GM who will continue to run things the way they are now.  You're right, we don't "know," but we can be pretty damn sure he will be.

As far as needing cap room for future signings, it can be cleared at that time, potentially easier than it could be now.  Howard's contract is up in 2 years, he might be easier to move on an expiring deal to a team that needs a stop gap in net until a younger player is ready to be #1.  Mrazek won't be back unless he rebounds.  Sheahan's deal expires next summer.  The other players will be one year closer to an expired deal and it would be easier to live with 1 less year of retained salary or 2 fewer years of a buyout penalty.  Plus, there's a very real chance that either the league or the PA will opt out of the current CBA in 2 years, which will probably result in a lowered cap and a round of compliance buyouts.

As far as Tavares signing here, it's a pipe dream.  It's no different than "well, we'll go hard after Suter and fix the defense, or Stamkos is going to be a free agent, they can throw a max contract at him," or whoever else people think will be a magic cure.  Do you try?  Yup.  But there's a difference between being realistic about the odds of getting him (the why would he sign here argument) and pinning your plans on getting him.

Here is the issue with debating with you Dickie, if I make a good point of what I would like to see, your fallback will always be "Well Holland won't do it, so it's a pipe-dream". However, this is a discussion board, and I am not going to stop giving opinions or idea's. You asked a question, I answered it. If anything I say simply leads to a Holland bashing, then why even ask the question in the first place?  

 

[kliq 3,763]

3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

As far as Tavares signing here, it's a pipe dream.  It's no different than "well, we'll go hard after Suter and fix the defense, or Stamkos is going to be a free agent, they can throw a max contract at him," or whoever else people think will be a magic cure.  Do you try?  Yup.  But there's a difference between being realistic about the odds of getting him (the why would he sign here argument) and pinning your plans on getting him.

NEVER once did I say or imply that JT would be a "magic cure". As a GM, you need to assess you your team and make the necessary adjustments to make your team a contender. IMO we have 3 major needs right now.

The first is we need an elite Center, by getting one we have the ability of moving Z to the 2C spot where he should be one of the best in the NHL, and by doing this it should make players like Nyquist, Tatar, AA etc. into very very good wingers. As we saw last year, they all excelled playing with Z, then struggled playing with whomever was our 2C.

Second is our D. Again, we have good depth, but no true #1 or #2. If we can make a trade, I think this helps a lot. I think Chowolski has potential, but that is a ways away.

Lastly i our coaching. We need Blashill to improve as a coach (it is possible) OR we need to replace him. It's clear as day that Blashill is not getting the most out of our players.

IF all 3 of these things can happen, I believe we go from being a fringe playoff team to a very good team. I get its easier said then done, but as a GM you have to try, and look at it piece by piece. There is no magic cure, extreme optimists like to think there is, extreme pessimists like to act as if nothing will work. The realistic approach is somewhere in between. You need to sit down, evaluate your team, and make the necessary moves in order to make this happen. Acquiring JT IMO is just 1 piece to solving this puzzle of making us contenders again. 

[Buppy 1,720]

15 hours ago, kliq said:

...So no opinion, I guess you can't ever be wrong that way. Much easier to just point out flaws in other's.

First, as a reminder, the original question was "what has changed [with Holland]", and my response was "the situation", as opposed to your opinion that "he got scared". I wasn't naysaying your opinion on what our plan should be, and in fact explicitly stated that I have no problem with the general "I want to see a trade" idea. The only flaw I take issue with is the (possibly unintended) implication that a "good" GM can do whatever he wants, whenever he needs to. 

Secondly, it's not that I don't have an opinion, it's that my opinion is that there is no right answer. The old "many ways to skin a cat" maxim. 

I could, and often do, give my opinion on moves we should try to make, players we should pursue, as well as things I think we shouldn't. But I try to keep that confined to specific hypothetical cases. Start generalizing about the overall direction, I go a bit further than you do. There are just so many things that could work. 

And finally, I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but rather just aware that whatever I might suggest would neither be the only nor best potential solution, nor even certain to work at all, nor necessarily possible to achieve. It's not a lack of conviction, it's a lack of hubris. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

First, as a reminder, the original question was "what has changed [with Holland]", and my response was "the situation", as opposed to your opinion that "he got scared". I wasn't naysaying your opinion on what our plan should be, and in fact explicitly stated that I have no problem with the general "I want to see a trade" idea. The only flaw I take issue with is the (possibly unintended) implication that a "good" GM can do whatever he wants, whenever he needs to. 

Secondly, it's not that I don't have an opinion, it's that my opinion is that there is no right answer. The old "many ways to skin a cat" maxim. 

I could, and often do, give my opinion on moves we should try to make, players we should pursue, as well as things I think we shouldn't. But I try to keep that confined to specific hypothetical cases. Start generalizing about the overall direction, I go a bit further than you do. There are just so many things that could work. 

And finally, I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but rather just aware that whatever I might suggest would neither be the only nor best potential solution, nor even certain to work at all, nor necessarily possible to achieve. It's not a lack of conviction, it's a lack of hubris. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Doubt it

[kliq 3,763]

13 hours ago, Buppy said:

First, as a reminder, the original question was "what has changed [with Holland]", and my response was "the situation", as opposed to your opinion that "he got scared". I wasn't naysaying your opinion on what our plan should be, and in fact explicitly stated that I have no problem with the general "I want to see a trade" idea. The only flaw I take issue with is the (possibly unintended) implication that a "good" GM can do whatever he wants, whenever he needs to. 

Secondly, it's not that I don't have an opinion, it's that my opinion is that there is no right answer. The old "many ways to skin a cat" maxim. 

I could, and often do, give my opinion on moves we should try to make, players we should pursue, as well as things I think we shouldn't. But I try to keep that confined to specific hypothetical cases. Start generalizing about the overall direction, I go a bit further than you do. There are just so many things that could work. 

And finally, I'm not trying to avoid being wrong, but rather just aware that whatever I might suggest would neither be the only nor best potential solution, nor even certain to work at all, nor necessarily possible to achieve. It's not a lack of conviction, it's a lack of hubris. I don't think that's a bad thing.

That was not the intended implication. If you interpreted my OP that way either you misinterpreted what I said, or its a reflection of the way I wrote it, which is on me. Mostly likely, it's a combination of the two.

The reason why I wrote what I wrote, is as of late the majority of your posts are just pointing out minor flaws in everyone's arguments. You may very well be correct a lot of the times, but when you don't post solutions or opinions, it comes across like you are taking on the role of message board "proof reader" and to be honest it can be annoying.  We all do this to a degree, especially with the ridiculous level of hyperbole on this board so I guess I do get it, but this is why I wrote what I did. With that being said, you have every right to post however you want so I'll leave it at that.

[OldTimeWinger 8]

Regrettably, it is too much to ask the DRW ownership to make a business-results (what have you done for us lately) decision on Holland and a potential contract extension. They're - to a fault - LOYAL. However, it's not too much to ask that any Holland contract be offered/negotiated like the players contracts he negotiates. Offer him a motivational-base salary with performance bonuses.

For example:

·         A 5% bonus if the Wings are 5% bellow the league mandated salary cap

·         A 5% bonus for every blue chip college free agent he signs

·         A 5% bonus if the Wings W-L record and total point are better the the previous 

·         A 10% bonus if the Wings make the playoffs

Make sense?

Edited August 24, 2017 by OldTimeWinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

20 minutes ago, OldTimeWinger said:

Regrettably, it is too much to ask the DRW ownership to make a business-results (what have you done for us lately) decision on Holland and a potential contract extension. They're - to a fault - LOYAL. However, it's not too much to ask that any Holland contract be offered/negotiated like the players contracts he negotiates. Offer him a motivational-base salary with performance bonuses.

For example:

·         A 5% bonus if the Wings are 5% bellow the league mandated salary cap

·         A 5% bonus for every blue chip college free agent he signs

·         A 5% bonus if the Wings W-L record and total point are better the the previous 

·         A 10% bonus if the Wings make the playoffs

Make sense?

What should his bonus be if he makes a meaningful trade?

[OldTimeWinger 8]

"Meaningful" is a far to subjective term. What YOU deem meaningful most likely is different than what I or your neighbor sees as meaningful. Bonuses should be linked to tangible and quantifiable variables. That way there are clear targets and thresholds to be attained and/or surpassed with corresponding rewards,

[krsmith17 7,191]

37 minutes ago, OldTimeWinger said:

"Meaningful" is a far to subjective term. What YOU deem meaningful most likely is different than what I or your neighbor sees as meaningful. Bonuses should be linked to tangible and quantifiable variables. That way there are clear targets and thresholds to be attained and/or surpassed with corresponding rewards,

That comment was completely tongue in cheek. I don't actually think a GM should get a bonus based on making a trade... But anyway, by "meaningful" I meant a trade that either offloads a bad contract, or brings in a young talented player that would fill a need. Not a deadline trade involving a player for a pick, or a trade involving a fringe NHL player and a condition 7th...

[LeftWinger 5,131]

Just food for thought, Lou Lamoriello's contract is also up.after this season in Toronto. Maybe Holland reunites with Baba and Shanny?

[kliq 3,763]

33 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Just food for thought, Lou Lamoriello's contract is also up.after this season in Toronto. Maybe Holland reunites with Baba and Shanny?

I actually did read somewhere that if Detroit let Holland go, Toronto would scoop him up in a heartbeat. As much as fans here in Detroit have turned on him, he is still very respected around the NHL.

[Euro_Twins 4,485]

27 minutes ago, kliq said:

I actually did read somewhere that if Detroit let Holland go, Toronto would scoop him up in a heartbeat. As much as fans here in Detroit have turned on him, he is still very respected around the NHL.

That was speculation by Toronto media iirc. What position would they give him there? 

[kliq 3,763]

21 minutes ago, Euro_Twins said:

That was speculation by Toronto media iirc. What position would they give him there? 

If memory serves me right, it was GM with the belief that LL would step down. You're right though, it was speculation. I think I read it on tsn.

[Euro_Twins 4,485]

16 minutes ago, kliq said:

If memory serves me right, it was GM with the belief that LL would step down. You're right though, it was speculation. I think I read it on tsn.

Why step down though? You have a young star in Matthews, a very good young team on the verge of breaking out. And why would they not want to renew the guy in charge when the team is heading upwards? It doesn't make any sense. Both sides are benefiting greatly right now. It seams like a no brainer that he gets renewed. 

[kliq 3,763]

11 minutes ago, Euro_Twins said:

Why step down though? You have a young star in Matthews, a very good young team on the verge of breaking out. And why would they not want to renew the guy in charge when the team is heading upwards? It doesn't make any sense. Both sides are benefiting greatly right now. It seams like a no brainer that he gets renewed. 

The only reason I can think of is age. The guy is 74,and being a GM can't be an easy job. That's a lot of hours for guy that age who likely doesn't need the money. I could see him still being involved, but in more of a Scotty Bowman/Hawks sort of way. Again though, I admit this is speculation. 

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, Euro_Twins said:

Why step down though? You have a young star in Matthews, a very good young team on the verge of breaking out. And why would they not want to renew the guy in charge when the team is heading upwards? It doesn't make any sense. Both sides are benefiting greatly right now. It seams like a no brainer that he gets renewed. 

He's not particularly aging well. But I'd think he has at least 2-3 years in him. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by kickazz

[frankgrimes 1,836]

3 hours ago, Euro_Twins said:

Why step down though? You have a young star in Matthews, a very good young team on the verge of breaking out. And why would they not want to renew the guy in charge when the team is heading upwards? It doesn't make any sense. Both sides are benefiting greatly right now. It seams like a no brainer that he gets renewed. 

Even if Chris does extend Ken he can still be fired they just would have to pay him for the duration of the contract. 

I think the next GM in Toronto is going to be that young genius kid Dubas, he is learning at every position from top guys be it coaching, GM, draft or even the governor. 

[LoveMyRedWings56 73]

I'm hoping more and more, That it's a fire Holland and Blashill watch. Pretty sure that both are on a short leash this year.

[LeftWinger 5,131]

There is no stepping down for Lou, his contract is up after this season.

[kjw25 104]

How come Holland is never held accountable? When you are one of the worst teams in the league yet have the highest payroll, something needs to be done.

Hollands Contracts- Abdelkador- Awful, just terrible.

                                 Helm-Lets lock him up when he never stays healthy and cannot score. Awful again

                                  Ericsson- Well this is okay I guess

                                  Franzen-Excellent decision 

                                  Neilson, Kronwall, Weiss, 

                                  Danny DeKeyser- Probably the top 5 worst d men in the league. Good he locked him up. 

KENNY JUST RETIRE, YOU SUCK!

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 minutes ago, kjw25 said:

How come Holland is never held accountable? When you are one of the worst teams in the league yet have the highest payroll, something needs to be done.

Hollands Contracts- Abdelkador- Awful, just terrible.

                                 Helm-Lets lock him up when he never stays healthy and cannot score. Awful again

                                  Ericsson- Well this is okay I guess

                                  Franzen-Excellent decision 

                                  Neilson, Kronwall, Weiss, 

                                  Danny DeKeyser- Probably the top 5 worst d men in the league. Good he locked him up. 

KENNY JUST RETIRE, YOU SUCK!

 

You lose all credibility with this one...

[kjw25 104]

I am sorry it should have said.....

Danny DeKeyser- Probably the top 3 worst d men in the league!!!!

[kliq 3,763]

4 minutes ago, kjw25 said:

I am sorry it should have said.....

Danny DeKeyser- Probably the top 3 worst d men in the league!!!!

Being over the top doesn't help get your point across, it just kills your credibility. 

In all seriousness, are you trying to say he is one of the worst top pairing D in the league? Or worst in general? If you are saying first pairing D, that is not on him, that means he is being miscast. If you are implying in general, then like @krsmith17 said, you lose all creditiblity.