Official 2018 Off Season *Rebuild* Thread

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Holland signed a young draft pick to a contract? Doing the same things he does every year I see, back to page 1. This is getting scary...

What's next? A depth forward signing for Grand Rapids? I hope the f*** not...

[LeftWinger 4,963]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Holland signed a young draft pick to a contract? Doing the same things he does every year I see, back to page 1. This is getting scary...

You're taking things way out of context. Page 2 has nothing to do with signing our draft picks.

As smart as you seem to be, I still cannot believe you don't  understand the metaphor....oh well.

[SwedeLundin77 460]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Holland signed a young draft pick to a contract? Doing the same things he does every year I see, back to page 1. This is getting scary...

I just don't understand the decision on Sambrook.... a 20-year-old prospect who had a good season split between 2 teams. He has decent size and a right shot. Why not bring him up to GR this upcoming season and see what he's got?

[Buppy 1,720]

4 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

You're taking things way out of context. Page 2 has nothing to do with signing our draft picks.

As smart as you seem to be, I still cannot believe you don't  understand the metaphor....oh well.

Everyone understands it. We're just mocking it because it's stupid....

 

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

What's next? A depth forward signing for Grand Rapids? I hope the f*** not...

I bet he's going to draft a bunch of kids in June, just like always does.

...See.

[Buppy 1,720]

3 minutes ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

I just don't understand the decision on Sambrook.... a 20-year-old prospect who had a good season split between 2 teams. He has decent size and a right shot. Why not bring him up to GR this upcoming season and see what he's got?

Has there been a decision on Sambrook? I know he's not yet signed, and only a week left, but haven't seen anything definite. 

That said, I wouldn't care too much either way. 40 pts in the OHL isn't anything to get excited about, and he didn't improve (maybe even regressed a little) from last year.

[BinMucker94 302]

31 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Has there been a decision on Sambrook? I know he's not yet signed, and only a week left, but haven't seen anything definite. 

That said, I wouldn't care too much either way. 40 pts in the OHL isn't anything to get excited about, and he didn't improve (maybe even regressed a little) from last year.

I think HSJs twitter said something along the lines of the Wings won’t be offering him a contract. Then I read some comments and a few people said he regressed this year. I’ll try to find the link but I’ll probably just get lazy and not care.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

53 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

You're taking things way out of context. Page 2 has nothing to do with signing our draft picks.

As smart as you seem to be, I still cannot believe you don't  understand the metaphor....oh well.

I didnt mention page 2, is this a page 2 move? I thought page 2 was drafting short Dmen?

Now I remember, page 1 is signing depth goalies. Damn Holland and his obsession with positional depth...

[LeftWinger 4,963]

Your joke has run stale. I know you understand what I mean. We'll see where he goes from here if he sticks to his word on a rebuild or just does the same ol' stuff.

Nuff said. We'll see what happens next.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Your joke has run stale. I know you understand what I mean. We'll see where he goes from here if he sticks to his word on a rebuild or just does the same ol' stuff.

Nuff said. We'll see what happens next.

No I really dont understand ur metaphor. You used it to try and explain that a young depth goalie on an ELC somehow means were not rebuilding, which makes no sense at all. So maybe you should either explain ur metaphor in detail or drop it altogether. Just a thought.

You havent explained what "same ol stuff" is either. I have a feeling you dont know what it is lol

[LeftWinger 4,963]

I feel I explained it enough. You obviously didn't read where I said it had nothing to do with position or nationality. But ya, since you apparently don't get it, we'll drop it. Besides you guys brought it back up after the Lindstrom signing. Not me...

We'll address it again mid summer.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

20 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I feel I explained it enough. You obviously didn't read where I said it had nothing to do with position or nationality. But ya, since you apparently don't get it, we'll drop it. Besides you guys brought it back up after the Lindstrom signing. Not me...

We'll address it again mid summer.

Obviously I did, bc i responded "soooo signing players? Thats what sports teams do..."

You never addressed it after that. Figured you were too embarassed by that point to explain any further, but ill listen now if you care to continue. You havent explained anything so far, you just keep telling everyone they dont get it lol

Edited May 25, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, SwedeLundin77 said:

I just don't understand the decision on Sambrook.... a 20-year-old prospect who had a good season split between 2 teams. He has decent size and a right shot. Why not bring him up to GR this upcoming season and see what he's got?

Yeah, I would have liked to see him given an opportunity. I was pretty hopeful that he'd develop into a steady 3rd pairing guy for the Wings some day. He had a good draft +1 year, but kind of plateaued, maybe even regressed a little last year. Still would have preferred to see him get a shot in Grand Rapids over Lashoff, Renouf or McIlrath. He can still be signed before June 1st can't he?

 

I guess not...

1 hour ago, BinMucker94 said:

I think HSJs twitter said something along the lines of the Wings won’t be offering him a contract. Then I read some comments and a few people said he regressed this year. I’ll try to find the link but I’ll probably just get lazy and not care.

That's unfortunate. Yeah, he did regress. I still think his play in junior should have warranted a shot in GR. His ceiling was always likely a 3rd pairing guy though, and we already have a log jam there. I was always rooting for the kid, because of the Draper story, but I guess it wasn't meant to be... Oh well...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Sambrook is meh. Can we still sign McKee?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

It's spelled "M-E-T-A-F-O-R"

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, BinMucker94 said:

I think HSJs twitter said something along the lines of the Wings won’t be offering him a contract. Then I read some comments and a few people said he regressed this year. I’ll try to find the link but I’ll probably just get lazy and not care.

https://wingsnation.com/2018/05/23/red-wings-not-signing-jordan-sambrook/

 

[Mellanby_equals_grit 1]

Haha my ban has been lifted! After literally a decade (although previously it wasn't set to end til 8/10/29).  Judging by the # of posts here wondering if it's cause of lack of posters.

[LeftWinger 4,963]

13 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Obviously I did, bc i responded "soooo signing players? Thats what sports teams do..."

You never addressed it after that. Figured you were too embarassed by that point to explain any further, but ill listen now if you care to continue. You havent explained anything so far, you just keep telling everyone they dont get it lol

Nothing embarrasses me. I'll explain it one more time...

pretend there is a Ken Holland Manual on how to conduct off season business. He has been using it (doing much of the same thing every off season for how long now?) to conduct his approach to the off season every season. Page 1 of the manual usually starts off by ( I left this out) being in the running for and then losing out on a highly touted NCAA player and then it's usually followed by signing a virtually unknown player from wherever, doesn't matter the position, he usually does this. You can look over the last 5+ years and see this to be true. Usually that player is touted as to having a chance to be in Detroit and is said that he'll make it so there is more competition to make the 1 or 2 spots available, but never usually makes it and splits after the contract is up. Also, I left out the introduction where Holland ALWAYS says we need to change the makeup of the team, get bigger, get more sandpaper and get harder to play against.  This is where we are at now, reading the same introduction and the same page 1.  I had said, if after hearing what Holland had to say AGAIN about changes, then he goes and does the same stuff as the previous years, we'll be on the same page 2, because instead of doing what he says and taking risks, making bold moves, he would've just reverted back to his manual and played it the same way he always has.

I expect big things from him starting now, especially since he was given (another) two years and wants to rebuild this team towards its former glory.  Going by the same book, status quo, is not rebuilding, so far (even though it is good to sign depth players, I get it) he has done the same thing he does each year.  Now maybe the new Holland Manual has the same couple of few pages and then he'll make the bold changes needed, that is fine, but when I said it may be scary, I meant if we all get excited about new changes, new types of players, more kids on the big club, but then he just defaults back to the same old Holland, like he is re-reading the same old book or manual, it will suck and we'll all be pissed off and lose even more interest in this team.

Look, signing UFA players is good, to fill your 50 man roster, I didn't bash the Rybar signing whatsoever, I just simply said, so far, he has followed the same order of his business as usual manual, and hoped he started writing new pages to it soon or it could get scary and we would all be angry again.

Now, lets get this draft here and see which direction he will go! I prefer the Bouchard/Dobson type, but if Hughes is drafted, it would not be a bad thing, we are in dire need of BOTH types of d-men. I just think we need a Bouchard type more desperately than the Hughes type first.

Besides:

met·a·phor

ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/

noun

A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.

 

11 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

It's spelled "M-E-T-A-F-O-R"

They sure do spell things oddly where you come from...

Edited May 26, 2018 by LeftWinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Nothing embarrasses me. I'll explain it one more time...

pretend there is a Ken Holland Manual on how to conduct off season business. He has been using it (doing much of the same thing every off season for how long now?) to conduct his approach to the off season every season. Page 1 of the manual usually starts off by ( I left this out) being in the running for and then losing out on a highly touted NCAA player and then it's usually followed by signing a virtually unknown player from wherever, doesn't matter the position, he usually does this. You can look over the last 5+ years and see this to be true. Usually that player is touted as to having a chance to be in Detroit and is said that he'll make it so there is more competition to make the 1 or 2 spots available, but never usually makes it and splits after the contract is up. Also, I left out the introduction where Holland ALWAYS says we need to change the makeup of the team, get bigger, get more sandpaper and get harder to play against.  This is where we are at now, reading the same introduction and the same page 1.  I had said, if after hearing what Holland had to say AGAIN about changes, then he goes and does the same stuff as the previous years, we'll be on the same page 2, because instead of doing what he says and taking risks, making bold moves, he would've just reverted back to his manual and played it the same way he always has.

I expect big things from him starting now, especially since he was given (another) two years and wants to rebuild this team towards its former glory.  Going by the same book, status quo, is not rebuilding, so far (even though it is good to sign depth players, I get it) he has done the same thing he does each year.  Now maybe the new Holland Manual has the same couple of few pages and then he'll make the bold changes needed, that is fine, but when I said it may be scary, I meant if we all get excited about new changes, new types of players, more kids on the big club, but then he just defaults back to the same old Holland, like he is re-reading the same old book or manual, it will suck and we'll all be pissed off and lose even more interest in this team.

Look, signing UFA players is good, to fill your 50 man roster, I didn't bash the Rybar signing whatsoever, I just simply said, so far, he has followed the same order of his business as usual manual, and hoped he started writing new pages to it soon or it could get scary and we would all be angry again.

Now, lets get this draft here and see which direction he will go! I prefer the Bouchard/Dobson type, but if Hughes is drafted, it would not be a bad thing, we are in dire need of BOTH types of d-men. I just think we need a Bouchard type more desperately than the Hughes type first.

Besides:

met·a·phor

ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/

noun

A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.

 

They sure do spell things oddly where you come from...

Ok, but what would you have preffered he done with the open hole in GR? What would have made Leftwinger happy and not frightened? Re-sign Mcollum and Coreau? Not sign anyone? Trade for someone? Bring in a particular UFA? 

[LeftWinger 4,963]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ok, but what would you have preffered he done with the open hole in GR? What would have made Leftwinger happy and not frightened? Re-sign Mcollum and Coreau? Not sign anyone? Trade for someone? Bring in a particular UFA? 

I didn't sat it was bad. I am totally good with it! Hopefully he is better than any of our current goalies, Howard included and ends up being a diamond find!

Making the D better would also go a long way towards making our G's better. This is not the draft thread, so I will only mention drafting one once, Bouchard/Dobson/Hughes would make our D better.

How do we make our D better outside of the draft? We don't have a ton of worthy assets to get one via trade, but realistically, how could our D get better with the young players we do have to offer? Let's say Svech, AA and maybe a D prospect.

A better D means better goaltending, maybe Rybar comes in wins the backup spot and ends up outplaying Howard, plus being younger, more agile, quicker, maybe with a better D, he actually becomes a nice NHL goaler and sticks around for a while.

No, I don't think they should re-sign McCollum, but signing Coreau to stay in GR is not a bad idea or just go with all the kids, because, yes, even thought he AHL has its own Cup to win, and you want to ice the best you can, it is also the main developmental league for future NHL players.  Maybe we just play two kids there and have a 3rd string in the box all the time.

Actually hanging on to McCullum and not letting kids develop at that position would be another example of "business as usual."

Edited May 26, 2018 by LeftWinger

[LeftWinger 4,963]

Honestly, if you ask me, all the UFA's in GR that are over 25, you let go and sign your own draft picks (like Sambrook) and give them the shot at developing their game at a higher level.

 

Tangradi, Street, McCollum, Lorito and even Coreau are all replaceable with our draft picks. I'd even let Turner go if it meant getting one of our drafted kids in there to develop more.

Which brings me to a question. Looking over the Griffins roster, there are players there that aren't on the Wings depth list. Obviously signed by GR and that is all.  Is there any way to call up one of those or would they have to sign a contract with Wings first? Probably dumb question, but I have 900,000,000 things going through my head right now...

Edited July 23, 2018 by LeftWinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

LeftWinger, one thing that you need to understand is that no NHL affiliate has a team full of prospects. For two reasons... One, you'll never have enough prospects in the system at one time to fill an entire roster. And two, you need to have veterans to mentor the kids. The same reason it's important to have veterans like Zetterberg, Kronwall and Howard on the big club to mentor the kids.

What "prospects" will we have in Grand Rapids this year? Turgeon, Pope, Smith, Sadowy, Holmstrom, Ehn, Cholowski, Hicketts (maybe), Sulak, Hronek, Saarijarvi, Russo, McIlrath, Fulcher, and Rybar. I wouldn't even consider half of them legit prospects. You have to fill out the rest of the roster. Some will be older players for veteran leadership, others will be younger college free agent signings.

I'm not sure if Tangradi, Street or Lorito will be back, but if they are, that's great. If not, they'll be replaced by other veterans, not prospects. Because again, there aren't any.

What two kids are you referring to playing in goal for Grand Rapids? Fulcher and Rybar? Rybar, maybe, but I wouldn't rush Fulcher. It's not about winning another Calder Cup, it's about developing the few promising prospects we have. You don't do that by rushing them. It will likely be Rybar and one of Coreau / McCollum / UFA in Grand Rapids and Fulcher in Toledo. Petruzzelli and Larsson will remain in college for the time being.

Anyway, there's nothing Holland has done so far this off-season that warrants getting upset about. It's all standard so far. Adding depth to the organization. He's said all the right things about getting younger, and I fully expect him to stick to that. This is not the same Holland. He's actually doing a very good job early on in this rebuild. So whatever book you're talking about, put it away, and just wait and see how things play out...

[Buppy 1,720]

7 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

...pretend there is a Ken Holland Manual on how to conduct off season business. He has been using it (doing much of the same thing every off season for how long now?) to conduct his approach to the off season every season. Page 1 of the manual usually starts off by ( I left this out) being in the running for and then losing out on a highly touted NCAA player and then it's usually followed by signing a virtually unknown player from wherever, doesn't matter the position, he usually does this. You can look over the last 5+ years and see this to be true. Usually that player is touted as to having a chance to be in Detroit and is said that he'll make it so there is more competition to make the 1 or 2 spots available, but never usually makes it and splits after the contract is up. Also, I left out the introduction where Holland ALWAYS says we need to change the makeup of the team, get bigger, get more sandpaper and get harder to play against.  This is where we are at now, reading the same introduction and the same page 1.  I had said, if after hearing what Holland had to say AGAIN about changes, then he goes and does the same stuff as the previous years, we'll be on the same page 2, because instead of doing what he says and taking risks, making bold moves, he would've just reverted back to his manual and played it the same way he always has.

I expect big things from him starting now, especially since he was given (another) two years and wants to rebuild this team towards its former glory.  Going by the same book, status quo, is not rebuilding, so far (even though it is good to sign depth players, I get it) he has done the same thing he does each year.  Now maybe the new Holland Manual has the same couple of few pages and then he'll make the bold changes needed, that is fine, but when I said it may be scary, I meant if we all get excited about new changes, new types of players, more kids on the big club, but then he just defaults back to the same old Holland, like he is re-reading the same old book or manual, it will suck and we'll all be pissed off and lose even more interest in this team.

Look, signing UFA players is good, to fill your 50 man roster, I didn't bash the Rybar signing whatsoever, I just simply said, so far, he has followed the same order of his business as usual manual, and hoped he started writing new pages to it soon or it could get scary and we would all be angry again.

Now, lets get this draft here and see which direction he will go! I prefer the Bouchard/Dobson type, but if Hughes is drafted, it would not be a bad thing, we are in dire need of BOTH types of d-men. I just think we need a Bouchard type more desperately than the Hughes type first.

This is what I meant in saying you don't understand reality and blow things out of proportion. While I'm certain you won't get it, I'll explain some things anyway on the off chance that someone else reading can benefit.

First, you acknowledge that you don't have problem with anything that's been done so far, but you're still bitching about Holland, about things that haven't even happened. Much like last year when you were calling Holland an idiot because someone else predicted he might do something, even though that thing (drafting Pettersson) would have been a solid move.

Secondly, the basic premise that the Wings need to change any philosophy is wrong. But that debate could be a whole thread by itself, so I won't go any further.

Then there's the specifics of your hypothetical manual, which in reality are simply the ways things work in the NHL. It's all but literally impossible to do things any different: College and European UFAs are signed at this time of year, because this is the time of year when they become available. Aside from maybe a few breakout college stars (and since there are so few of those, almost every team misses out almost every year) most of these players are mostly unknown, because if they weren't they would have been drafted and already signed, so thus unavailable. 

Most of these players, being low-end prospects, will never make it to the NHL, some not even the AHL. But you can't criticize Holland for that. There aren't enough high-end prospects available to do things any different. And you're dead wrong about the "gets buried, never make it and split after their contract" stuff. Take your own advice and go back and look at our history. Coreau, Glendening, Campbell, Hicketts, Russo, Renouf, Sulak...all still with the organization, almost all got at least a couple games in the NHL. Hicketts and Sulak might still become full-timers. Machovsky is the only one who fits your profile. (You have a tendency to exaggerate things that happen once, or even not at all...like your "typical Holland pick" thing. Wait, do YOU have a manual?)

Finally, you selectively ignore things that don't fit your anti-Holland narrative. Yes, he's said we need to get bigger and tougher to play against, among other things. Take a look at our recent draft history and try to tell me that size hasn't been a priority. Why would you think drafting one smaller defenseman would negate all the size we have drafted recently?

Despite what I suspect is your strong desire to classify Hughes/Boqvist as "European style", they probably have a lot more in common with Bouchard/Dobson than they have differences. Neither of the bigger guys project as particularly physical players. Not likely to be punishing guys in the corners or bulldozing the crease. Nor, if the more in-depth scouting reports are to be believed, should we think of Boqvist and Hughes as defensive liabilities. 

Basically, your entire "metaphor" boils down to your typical "Boo, Holland! Because stuff!" ridiculous freakout. The one and only page in your book. 

[LeftWinger 4,963]

Nah, not booing Holland at all. @Buppy you got it all wrong. But I appreciate your post.

I'd take any one of Hughes and or Boqvist if my 1st 2 choices were already. I never said we'd be a loser if we took any of the four, but I, like everyone, have my pecking order.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,015]

If he's serious about remaining competitive Holland has three non draft related  jobs this summer. 

1. Replace Tatar's 20 goals.

2. Find another 30 somewhere

3. Find a better backup goalie for Howard.

 

[kliq 3,755]

Just now, The 91 of Ryans said:

If he's serious about remaining competitive Holland has three non draft related  jobs this summer. 

1. Replace Tatar's 20 goals.

2. Find another 30 somewhere

3. Find a better backup goalie for Howard.

 

I don't think the Wings are serious about being competitive in 2018/19.