Official 2019 Offseason Rebuild Thread

[kipwinger 8,522]

2 hours ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Ok here we go with some more of your idiotic nonsense , yzerman didn’t sign undrafted players in Johnson and gourde? Was there for kucherov , point , vasilevsky and brought in McDonough and Miller but hey let’s s*** on the guy cause he was lucky to have stamkos and hedman

no ones disputing that hedman and stamkos are all stars but a lot of gms inherit great players, example mcdavid and oilers and a lot of the gms never accomplish anything , so instead of trying to s*** on one of the best players in wings history in favour of a gm who’s accomplished nothing in the last 10 yrs but give our team cap problems with horrible deals (those are the facts) why don’t you give credit to yzerman

and Holland won those cups prior to the cap era and had the best coach in hockey history behind the bench and that’s the facts not an excuse , Bowman is a legend 

You're making my point for me.  Thanks.

[kipwinger 8,522]

3 hours ago, kickazz said:

With all the tools that we do have in the system, we could get a new GM who is willing to speed things up through trades and free agency and turn the rebuild pretty quick. 

It’s like the “stale voice” that I mentioned. When a new guy comes in he’s almost expected to do something different just like any new CEO during a company turnover would. 

We’ve got some pieces available, some promising players, bring a new guy in and let’s get fancy with it.

I guess I just disagree with the "stale voice" premise as you're relating it to a GM.  If I agreed that we needed a new GM, then Yzerman would be a legitimate option.  But I don't agree we need a new GM.  Our GM is doing a good job.  I think you're reaching on this "stale voice" thing.  But that's because I think everybody overstates this.  First, GMs are not  really responsible for strategic or tactical decisions which affect the game in real-time.  Those COULD get stale if the were boring and/or increasingly ineffective over time.  But that's on the coach.  So maybe a coach's message could get stale, though I really doubt that too.  Only in hockey is this even a thing people posit.  Nobody says Nick Saban, or Bill Belichick, or Greg Popovich should get fired because their "voice is stale".  It's mostly just nonsense, and to the extent it's true would only apply to coaches and not GMs.

GMs are responsible for personnel decisions, and pretty much all GMs make the same kinds of decisions in the same kinds of scenarios.  It's the reason why there is a general consensus on draft rankings.  It's the reason there is a general consensus on the market value of free agents.  Hell, Kyle Dubas is considered the "renegade" GM because he uses...analytics!  That's how homogenized GM decision making is.  I actually think longevity is an advantage for GMs.  First, because there are unlikely to be scenarios which Ken Holland has not dealt with and navigated successfully in his 20+ years on the job.  Second, because any process that takes a long time to complete is easier when you know as much about where you're coming from as where you're going. 

Edited February 10, 2019 by kipwinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

16 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I guess I just disagree with the "stale voice" premise as you're relating it to a GM.  If I agreed that we needed a new GM, then Yzerman would be a legitimate option.  But I don't agree we need a new GM.  Our GM is doing a good job.  I think you're reaching on this "stale voice" thing.  But that's because I think everybody overstates this.  First, GMs are not  really responsible for strategic or tactical decisions which affect the game in real-time.  Those COULD get stale if the were boring and/or increasingly ineffective over time.  But that's on the coach.  So maybe a coach's message could get stale, though I really doubt that too.  Only in hockey is this even a thing people posit.  Nobody says Nick Saban, or Bill Belichick, or Greg Popovich should get fired because their "voice is stale".  It's mostly just nonsense, and to the extent it's true would only apply to coaches and not GMs.

GMs are responsible for personnel decisions, and pretty much all GMs make the same kinds of decisions in the same kinds of scenarios.  It's the reason why there is a general consensus on draft rankings.  It's the reason there is a general consensus on the market value of free agents.  Hell, Kyle Dubas is considered the "renegade" GM because he uses...analytics!  That's how homogenized GM decision making is.  I actually think longevity is an advantage for GMs.  First, because there are unlikely to be scenarios which Ken Holland has not dealt with and navigated successfully in his 20+ years on the job.  Second, because any process that takes a long time to complete is easier when you know as much about where you're coming from as where you're going. 

His transfers between leagues are hella stale. Wade Megan really didn't seem fully invested the last time Holland put him on waivers. I doubt he even goes back to Grand Rapids.

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

You're making my point for me.  Thanks.

So you do agree Holland has been a bad gm the last 10 yrs cool beans 

later nature boy 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

16 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

So you do agree Holland has been a bad gm the last 10 yrs cool beans 

later nature boy 

Both Holland and Yzerman inherited teams with superstars and added to it. They both managed NHL franchises to Stanley Cup victories.

The difference? Yzerman has yet to deal with the inevitability of his team taking a downturn, as picking later, and trading away picks and prospects to bolster your roster will eventually do. We have seen how Holland handled it, but we have yet to see how Yzerman would.

Plus, would Yzerman have to worry about keeping a playoff streak going? That also would have an impact on a GM's ability to do his job.

Its easy, and lazy, to call Yzerman better than Holland at this point, when he has equaled Holland's success in his tenure as GM, but has yet to deal with the same adversities that Holland experienced later on. That would truly give us a more fair comparison. 

Would Yzerman do better than Holland under the same circumstances, operating at the same point in this team's history? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.  But I won't go so far as to say he's better when his resume is still incomplete at this point. Thats just bias.

[kickazz 5,459]

16 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Both Holland and Yzerman inherited teams with superstars and added to it. They both managed NHL franchises to Stanley Cup victories.

The difference? Yzerman has yet to deal with the inevitability of his team taking a downturn, as picking later, and trading away picks and prospects to bolster your roster will eventually do. We have seen how Holland handled it, but we have yet to see how Yzerman would.

Plus, would Yzerman have to worry about keeping a playoff streak going? That also would have an impact on a GM's ability to do his job.

Its easy, and lazy, to call Yzerman better than Holland at this point, when he has equaled Holland's success in his tenure as GM, but has yet to deal with the same adversities that Holland experienced later on. That would truly give us a more fair comparison. 

Would Yzerman do better than Holland under the same circumstances, operating at the same point in this team's history? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.  But I won't go so far as to say he's better when his resume is still incomplete at this point. Thats just bias.

As far as I'm concerned Holland has been dealing with a downturning team for about 5-7 years now and not much has been accomplished/established aside from Dylan Larkin. He failed his "rebuild on the fly strategy between 2013-2016. His current strategy involves drafting through picks and Larkin has been a slam dunk. Cholo, Hronek are still on the fence on their outlook; we'll see how they turn out. Zadina , Veleno hopefully as well and I'm optimistic about them.

Holland hasnt turned this team over yet and is still far from it. Too early to tell anything.

Yzerman might not be better than Holland yet; but having a new GM might be better for the franchise.

Edited February 10, 2019 by kickazz

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

15 minutes ago, kickazz said:

As far as I'm concerned Holland has been dealing with a downturning team for about 5-7 years now and not much has been accomplished/established aside from Dylan Larkin. He failed his "rebuild on the fly strategy between 2013-2016. His current strategy involves drafting through picks and Larkin has been a slam dunk. Cholo, Hronek are still on the fence on their outlook; we'll see how they turn out. Zadina , Veleno hopefully as well and I'm optimistic about them.

Holland hasnt turned this team over yet and is still far from it. Too early to tell anything.

Yzerman might not be better than Holland yet; but having a new GM might be better for the franchise.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for Holland stepping aside or leaving and handing the team over to Yzerman. I agree with you there, it's time to move on.

I just believe in giving credit where credit is due. Ignoring the successes of an individual and only pointing to the negatives while only praising the same successes of another is completely biased and unfair IMO.

Nothing wrong with wanting a change, so do I. But I am not going to call Yzerman already a better GM than Holland. Its too soon for that. 

And frankly, I think that both Yzerman and Nill doing well in GM positions only bolsters Holland's legacy as they both learned their craft under him.

[kipwinger 8,522]

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Both Holland and Yzerman inherited teams with superstars and added to it. They both managed NHL franchises to Stanley Cup victories.

The difference? Yzerman has yet to deal with the inevitability of his team taking a downturn, as picking later, and trading away picks and prospects to bolster your roster will eventually do. We have seen how Holland handled it, but we have yet to see how Yzerman would.

Plus, would Yzerman have to worry about keeping a playoff streak going? That also would have an impact on a GM's ability to do his job.

Its easy, and lazy, to call Yzerman better than Holland at this point, when he has equaled Holland's success in his tenure as GM, but has yet to deal with the same adversities that Holland experienced later on. That would truly give us a more fair comparison. 

Would Yzerman do better than Holland under the same circumstances, operating at the same point in this team's history? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.  But I won't go so far as to say he's better when his resume is still incomplete at this point. Thats just bias.

Yzerman never managed a team to a Stanley Cup. 

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I guess I just disagree with the "stale voice" premise as you're relating it to a GM.  If I agreed that we needed a new GM, then Yzerman would be a legitimate option.  But I don't agree we need a new GM.  Our GM is doing a good job.  I think you're reaching on this "stale voice" thing.  But that's because I think everybody overstates this.  First, GMs are not  really responsible for strategic or tactical decisions which affect the game in real-time.  Those COULD get stale if the were boring and/or increasingly ineffective over time.  But that's on the coach.  So maybe a coach's message could get stale, though I really doubt that too.  Only in hockey is this even a thing people posit.  Nobody says Nick Saban, or Bill Belichick, or Greg Popovich should get fired because their "voice is stale".  It's mostly just nonsense, and to the extent it's true would only apply to coaches and not GMs.

GMs are responsible for personnel decisions, and pretty much all GMs make the same kinds of decisions in the same kinds of scenarios.  It's the reason why there is a general consensus on draft rankings.  It's the reason there is a general consensus on the market value of free agents.  Hell, Kyle Dubas is considered the "renegade" GM because he uses...analytics!  That's how homogenized GM decision making is.  I actually think longevity is an advantage for GMs.  First, because there are unlikely to be scenarios which Ken Holland has not dealt with and navigated successfully in his 20+ years on the job.  Second, because any process that takes a long time to complete is easier when you know as much about where you're coming from as where you're going. 

We may just have to disagree on this one. I just don't think Holland will be able to turn us into a successful contender. And part of my hesitancy comes from the fact that his "rebuild on the fly strategy" with Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, Pulkinen,  Brenden Smith, Mrazek, Sheahan ended up being a waste of time. At least at that point he still had Dats/Zet still as face of the team. 

Him signing another GM contract could just make him complacent. It wasn't really until last year when he started making some good trades (Tatar to Vegas). 

I would be cautious about re-signing Holland. Wouldn't mind him being promoted though. 

Edited February 10, 2019 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,522]

50 minutes ago, kickazz said:

We may just have to disagree on this one. I just don't think Holland will be able to turn us into a successful contender. And part of my hesitancy comes from the fact that his "rebuild on the fly strategy" with Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, Pulkinen,  Brenden Smith, Mrazek, Sheahan ended up being a waste of time. At least at that point he still had Dats/Zet still as face of the team. 

Him signing another GM contract could just make him complacent. It wasn't really until last year when he started making some good trades (Tatar to Vegas). 

I would be cautious about re-signing Holland. Wouldn't mind him being promoted though. 

Let me ask you this, when do you think our Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Kronwall/Lidstrom/Franzen/Hossa/Rafalski era Cup window officially ended?  I mean, I realize that our last trip to the finals was 2009, but even in 2013 we were within 1 win of beating the eventual Cup champions (Chicago).  So, like, when do you think that door was finally and definitively closed? 

[kickazz 5,459]

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Let me ask you this, when do you think our Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Kronwall/Lidstrom/Franzen/Hossa/Rafalski era Cup window officially ended?  I mean, I realize that our last trip to the finals was 2009, but even in 2013 we were within 1 win of beating the eventual Cup champions (Chicago).  So, like, when do you think that door was finally and definitively closed? 

Definitely? Probably 2014/15 ish. The window was slowly closing between 2010-2012 as Lidstrom got older, Rafalski retired, Stuart left, Holmstrom got older/retired. Key players that Holland wasn't able to replace which in turn caused the franchise to lean heavily on Dats and Zet. Which leads into the 2013 wlockout season where we surprised people, but we struggled hard to get into those playoffs. If it weren't for Zetterberg and Datsyuk willing the team into the playoffs the last few games; we may have not even made it. Luckily we won the last game of the season against Dallas. I'd say that's about the time Holland coined the whole "rebuild on the fly" terminology as well with guys like Nyquist/Tatar/Dekeyser/Brunner/Jurco becoming prominent roster players the next season. 

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,522]

51 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Definitely? Probably 2014/15 ish. The window was slowly closing between 2010-2012 as Lidstrom got older, Rafalski retired, Stuart left, Holmstrom got older/retired. Key players that Holland wasn't able to replace which in turn caused the franchise to lean heavily on Dats and Zet. Which leads into the 2013 wlockout season where we surprised people, but we struggled hard to get into those playoffs. If it weren't for Zetterberg and Datsyuk willing the team into the playoffs the last few games; we may have not even made it. Luckily we won the last game of the season against Dallas. I'd say that's about the time Holland coined the whole "rebuild on the fly" terminology as well with guys like Nyquist/Tatar/Dekeyser/Brunner/Jurco becoming prominent roster players the next season. 

 

The reason I ask is because from 2005 to 2012 we drafted in the first round 3 times.  Kindl, Smith, Sheahan. In 2013 we drafted Mantha and Bertuzzi and what is now considered the "rebuild" was underway.  Relying on Nyquist/Tatar/Dekeyser/etc. was less a strategy than it was a function of the fact that we didn't really have anyone else better in the farm system.  I think it's fair to criticize how we drafted during that period, thought most of the guys you mentioned exceeded expectations, but I don't think we deliberately chose to "retool" with substandard talent. 

Secondly, if our window didn't close until 2014/2015 and we were already drafting for the rebuild in 2013, then I'm not really sure what the problem was.  It's standard practice around the league to go all-in during Cup contention years, so that's not really something I think you can criticize Holland for doing.  Maybe (big maybe) he should have started a few years earlier (2012-2013), but if that's true then we're really only griping about one or two years of mismanagement.  Just doesn't seem that acute to me.

Here's what I think happened.  Holland went all-in starting around 2005 because his team was stacked and he wanted to rack up as many Cups as he could with Dats/Z/Lidstrom/Kronwall. That mean that we didn't draft much in the first round, and the 3 times we did turned out to be late first round duds.  That meant that toward the end of our contention period we were pretty thin on the ground, and when it became clear that we just weren't going to get it done again Holland started hanging on to his first rounders (Mantha, Larkin, Svech, Cholo, Ras, Zadina), selling at the deadline (Mrazek, Smith, Jurco, Vanek, Tatar), and stockpiling extra picks (Bertuzzi, Hronek, Veleno, Berggren). 

What should he have done differently?

Edited February 11, 2019 by kipwinger

[kickazz 5,459]

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

The reason I ask is because from 2005 to 2012 we drafted in the first round 3 times.  Kindl, Smith, Sheahan. In 2013 we drafted Mantha and Bertuzzi and what is now considered the "rebuild" was underway.  Relying on Nyquist/Tatar/Dekeyser/etc. was less a strategy than it was a function of the fact that we didn't really have anyone else better in the farm system.  I think it's fair to criticize how we drafted during that period, thought most of the guys you mentioned exceeded expectations, but I don't think we deliberately chose to "retool" with substandard talent. 

Secondly, if our window didn't close until 2014/2015 and we were already drafting for the rebuild in 2013, then I'm not really sure what the problem was.  It's standard practice around the league to go all-in during Cup contention years, so that's not really something I think you can criticize Holland for doing.  Maybe (big maybe) he should have started a few years earlier (2012-2013), but if that's true then we're really only griping about one or two years of mismanagement.  Just doesn't seem that acute to me.

Here's what I think happened.  Holland went all-in starting around 2005 because his team was stacked and he wanted to rack up as many Cups as he could with Dats/Z/Lidstrom/Kronwall. That mean that we didn't draft much in the first round, and the 3 times we did turned out to be late first round duds.  That meant that toward the end of our contention period we were pretty thin on the ground, and when it became clear that we just weren't going to get it done again Holland started hanging on to his first rounders (Mantha, Larkin, Svech, Cholo, Ras, Zadina), selling at the deadline (Mrazek, Smith, Jurco, Vanek, Tatar), and stockpiling extra picks (Bertuzzi, Hronek, Veleno, Berggren). 

What should he have done differently?

I think my issue is he didn’t replace some of the other players through trades. Because all of a sudden we lost Lidstrom, Stuart and Rafalski who were basically our top 3 defenseman. That was a big hit. I do know he tried with Suter and Parise, but my hope would have been he tried earlier to fish someone out and not wait until Lidstrom announced retirement. 

I remember when he acquired Mathew Schneider back in 03 or whatever it was. That was a good move and pretty preemptive. That’s the Holland type move I would have preferred as soon as Rafalski contemplated retirement. 

The reason I say this is because I felt like Dats/Zet still had it in then to win cups from 2010-2014. They were still top 10 forwards well into their 30s. 

So while I agree with you that he couldn’t have done much with the draft in our peak years, I think he could have done better with trades to keep up with the turn over as we were declining. 

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

On 2/9/2019 at 9:51 PM, kickazz said:

Having said all this were still in a much better position than we were years ago.

Far as Holland, GM tenure gets stale too not just coaches.

So Holland is doing good stuff, but he's (((stale)))? Ok.

16 hours ago, kickazz said:

With all the tools that we do have in the system, we could get a new GM who is willing to speed things up through trades and free agency and turn the rebuild pretty quick.

So you didn't like Holland's rebuild on the fly, but you're hoping someone else can double down on rebuilding on the fly even harder? Ok.

15 hours ago, kickazz said:

I think Holland ideology, hell even his presence is getting stale. He has nothing to prove here either.

What is Holland's ideology?
Even his mere presence is stale? Stale to who? You?

12 hours ago, kickazz said:

As far as I'm concerned Holland has been dealing with a downturning team for about 5-7 years now and not much has been accomplished/established aside from Dylan Larkin. He failed his "rebuild on the fly strategy between 2013-2016.

Yzerman might not be better than Holland yet; but having a new GM might be better for the franchise.

Not much has been accomplished? But earlier you said "we're in a much better position than we were years ago" Which is it?

So even though Yzerman may be a worse GM according to you, it's still better to have a new GM because... new is not (((stale)))?

10 hours ago, kickazz said:

I just don't think Holland will be able to turn us into a successful contender. And part of my hesitancy comes from the fact that his "rebuild on the fly strategy" with Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco, Pulkinen,  Brenden Smith, Mrazek, Sheahan ended up being a waste of time. At least at that point he still had Dats/Zet still as face of the team.

But but but...

12 hours ago, kickazz said:

Holland hasnt turned this team over yet and is still far from it. Too early to tell anything.

It's too early to tell I thought?...

3 hours ago, kickazz said:

I think my issue is he didn’t replace some of the other players through trades. Because all of a sudden we lost Lidstrom, Stuart and Rafalski who were basically our top 3 defenseman. That was a big hit. I do know he tried with Suter and Parise, but my hope would have been he tried earlier to fish someone out and not wait until Lidstrom announced retirement. 

I remember when he acquired Mathew Schneider back in 03 or whatever it was. That was a good move and pretty preemptive. That’s the Holland type move I would have preferred as soon as Rafalski contemplated retirement. 

The reason I say this is because I felt like Dats/Zet still had it in then to win cups from 2010-2014. They were still top 10 forwards well into their 30s. 

So while I agree with you that he couldn’t have done much with the draft in our peak years, I think he could have done better with trades to keep up with the turn over as we were declining. 

 

You sound like @LeftWinger

What trades did we miss out on during that time frame that would have replaced Lidstrom, Rafalski, and Stuart? You must have some in mind, as you feel Holland could have done better in this area. Do share.

[kipwinger 8,522]

9 hours ago, kickazz said:

I think my issue is he didn’t replace some of the other players through trades. Because all of a sudden we lost Lidstrom, Stuart and Rafalski who were basically our top 3 defenseman. That was a big hit. I do know he tried with Suter and Parise, but my hope would have been he tried earlier to fish someone out and not wait until Lidstrom announced retirement. 

I remember when he acquired Mathew Schneider back in 05 or whatever it was. That was a good move and pretty preemptive. That’s the Holland type move I would have preferred as soon as Rafalski contemplated retirement. 

The reason I say this is because I felt like Dats/Zet still had it in then to win cups from 2010-2014. They were still top 10 forwards well into their 30s. 

So while I agree with you that he couldn’t have done much with the draft in our peak years, I think he could have done better with trades to keep up with the turn over as we were declining. 

 

I think that's a fair criticism on a very specific point, but I don't really think it means Holland isn't best to run a rebuild.  Starting around 2010-11 we started losing D-men and seemed content to replace them with puds (Cole, Colaiacovo, Commodore) rather than legit d-men.  I always thought we should have landed Wisniewski, but Erhoff, Hamhuis, Suter come to mind as well.  But mishandling UFA d-men isn't the same thing as rebuilding, which is centered on the draft.  And in that area Holland has done very well over the years. 

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

Holland didnt transition this team in the early part of this decade like he did the previous decade.  To be great, you need 2 or 3 superstars playing with 2 or 3 superstars of the future.  Yzerman, Feds, and Lidstrom played with Z, Dats, and Kronwall.  Z, Dats, and Kronwall never got to play with Larkin, Kakko, and Hronek.  So we are starting with a fresh cycle.  Larkin, Kakko, and Hronek will have to be patient for 3-4 more years until we've added enough talent.  I do blame Holland and his staff for 10 years of draft duds, tho.  Doesnt make him a bad guy.  But he should be held accountable.

[krsmith17 7,191]

People really need to do more research on the draft, league wide before they spew this bulls*** that we've had so many draft busts over the years. It simply isn't true. Please name one player that is a true bust over the past 10-15 years. Maybe Svechnikov could be if he doesn't pan out, but even then, he was picked 19th overall, and the likelihood of a player picked in the latter half of the 1st round is only like 50% or something. Until we have top 5-10 picks that are true busts, I don't think you can discredit Holland for his drafting.

Looking just at the past 15 years, Franzen was a major steal at 97th overall. Abdelkader was a good pick at 42nd overall. Helm was a steal at 132nd overall. Matthias was a good pick at 47th overall. Smith was a good pick at 27th overall. Nyquist was a steal at 121st overall. Jensen was a steal at 150th overall. Tatar was a great pick at 60th overall. Mrazek was a great pick at 141st overall. Sheahan was a good pick at 21st overall. Jarnkrok was a great pick at 51st overall. Jurco was a good pick at 35th overall. Ouellet was a good pick at 48th overall. Marchenko was a steal at 205th overall. Athanasiou was a steal at 110th overall. Frk was a good pick at 49th overall. Mantha was a great pick at 20th overall. Bertuzzi was a steal at 58th overall. Larkin was a steal at 15th overall. There are others as well, but these are the main ones that stand out. It's too early to say on the last 4 drafts, but Svechnikov, Cholowski, Hronek, Rasmussen, Lindstrom, Zadina, Veleno, McIsaac all look like NHL players to varying degrees.

Holland has done a fantastic job these past few years, trading players for futures. Maybe he should have started the rebuild a year or two earlier, but what's done is done. Point remains that since the rebuild has started, he's been very good. I fully expect a big move or two again in the next two weeks before the deadline.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want Yzerman back. I'd love to see it happen. Admittedly, a lot of it because of the nostalgia, but I do think he'd do great things in Detroit again. I just don't think people should be so eager to push Holland out the door. Ideally, Holland moves up into some sort of executive position and Yzerman becomes the GM. Yzerman making the final decisions, but will be able to bounce ideas off of Holland...

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

29 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

People really need to do more research on the draft, league wide before they spew this bulls*** that we've had so many draft busts over the years. It simply isn't true. Please name one player that is a true bust over the past 10-15 years. Maybe Svechnikov could be if he doesn't pan out, but even then, he was picked 19th overall, and the likelihood of a player picked in the latter half of the 1st round is only like 50% or something. Until we have top 5-10 picks that are true busts, I don't think you can discredit Holland for his drafting.

Looking just at the past 15 years, Franzen was a major steal at 97th overall. Abdelkader was a good pick at 42nd overall. Helm was a steal at 132nd overall. Matthias was a good pick at 47th overall. Smith was a good pick at 27th overall. Nyquist was a steal at 121st overall. Jensen was a steal at 150th overall. Tatar was a great pick at 60th overall. Mrazek was a great pick at 141st overall. Sheahan was a good pick at 21st overall. Jarnkrok was a great pick at 51st overall..Jurco was a good pick at 35th overall Ouellet was a good pick at 48th overall. Marchenko was a steal at 205th overall. Athanasiou was a steal at 110th overall. Frk was a good pick at 49th overall. Mantha was a great pick at 20th overall. Bertuzzi was a steal at 58th overall. Larkin was a steal at 15th overall. There are others as well, but these are the main ones that stand out. It's too early to say on the last 4 drafts, but Svechnikov, Cholowski, Hronek, Rasmussen, Lindstrom, Zadina, Veleno, McIsaac all look like NHL players to varying degrees.

Holland has done a fantastic job these past few years, trading players for futures. Maybe he should have started the rebuild a year or two earlier, but what's done is done. Point remains that since the rebuild has started, he's been very good. I fully expect a big move or two again in the next two weeks before the deadline.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want Yzerman back. I'd love to see it happen. Admittedly, a lot of it because of the nostalgia, but I do think he'd do great things in Detroit again. I just don't think people should be so eager to push Holland out the door. Ideally, Holland moves up into some sort of executive position and Yzerman becomes the GM. Yzerman making the final decisions, but will be able to bounce ideas off of Holland...

I agree with the sentiment overall (I think Holland has done well especially in recent drafts since the Wright hiring) , but how exactly were these guys (bolded) great/good picks? Fringe NHLers/plugs. And these are the good ones. Forget about the McCollums, Ferraros, and Emmertons. 

I look at those guys in bold and I can live with them had there been at least one or two home-run picks. Like a Kucherov or a Josi. But if Brendan Smith and Xavier Ouellet are headlining your "Holland has drafted well" parade I think you'd have a lot of sad children. He had a bad spell between 2008 and 2014. s*** happens. Just sayin'. 

[kipwinger 8,522]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Holland didnt transition this team in the early part of this decade like he did the previous decade.  To be great, you need 2 or 3 superstars playing with 2 or 3 superstars of the future.  Yzerman, Feds, and Lidstrom played with Z, Dats, and Kronwall.  Z, Dats, and Kronwall never got to play with Larkin, Kakko, and Hronek.  So we are starting with a fresh cycle.  Larkin, Kakko, and Hronek will have to be patient for 3-4 more years until we've added enough talent.  I do blame Holland and his staff for 10 years of draft duds, tho.  Doesnt make him a bad guy.  But he should be held accountable.

Not really draft duds though. 

As I pointed out above, from 2005 to 2013 we drafted in the first round 3 of out 8 times.  THOSE picks were duds. But elsewhere we  did really well in the draft.  Guys like Abby, Helm, Nyquist, Tatar, Jensen, and AA all performed as good or better than their draft position would suggest during that period.  You could add Shawn Matthias and Calle Jarnkrok to that list as well.  They were good picks, we just traded them. 

We generally got good results from our picks, we just missed on the late first rounders, which hurt us.  But considering we didn't pick in the first round for 5 of those 8 years, the lack of high end picks hurt way worse than the three duds.  And you can't really blame Holland for trading 1st rounders during our Cup contention years when every other GM does the same thing. 

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

Not really draft duds though. 

As I pointed out above, from 2005 to 2013 we drafted in the first round 3 of out 8 times.  THOSE picks were duds. But elsewhere we  did really well in the draft.  Guys like Abby, Helm, Nyquist, Tatar, Jensen, and AA all performed as good or better than their draft position would suggest during that period.  You could add Shawn Matthias and Calle Jarnkrok to that list as well.  They were good picks, we just traded them. 

We generally got good results from our picks, we just missed on the late first rounders, which hurt us.  But considering we didn't pick in the first round for 5 of those 8 years, the lack of high end picks hurt way worse than the three duds.  And you can't really blame Holland for trading 1st rounders during our Cup contention years when every other GM does the same thing. 

None of those guys moved this team's needle but none of them were duds either. I believe the word is "mediocre". Nothing to slam Holland over, but nothing to excuse either.

Anyway, I blame Nill and McDonnell for not finding this team a true difference maker in the 2nd round. And Holland, to a lesser degree, for trusting them. Regardless, all is "Wright" with this team's drafting now. 

[Mckinley25 677]

Is mediocre not the expectation for rounds 2-4?   I would think if you land an NHL regular in those rounds it was successful.  If you get a Nyquist it was above expectations.

[kipwinger 8,522]

1 minute ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

None of those guys moved this team's needle but none of them were duds either. I believe the word is "mediocre". Nothing to slam Holland over, but nothing to excuse either.

Anyway, I blame Nill and McDonnell for not finding this team a true difference maker in the 2nd round. And Holland, to a lesser degree, for trusting them. Regardless, all is "Wright" with this team's drafting now. 

I wasn't suggesting they were game changing talents.  But all those guys were drafted in the 2-5 rounds.  You're not EXPECTING game changing talent in those rounds.  That doesn't mean they weren't really good picks.  They were. Particularly Tatar.  If you get a guy who scores 20 goals a year, ever year, in the 2nd round you've done a REALLY good job. 

I do agree though that we seem to be back on track with our drafting.  And it's not even that we're drafting higher either.  Trading back for Mantha/Bert, and Cholo/Hronek, were awesome moves that don't get talked about enough.  Also, people LOVE to give Nill and McDonnell credit for Holland's successes but I never hear anyone say those guys are on the hook for Kindl, Smith, and Sheahan. 

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I wasn't suggesting they were game changing talents.  But all those guys were drafted in the 2-5 rounds.  You're not EXPECTING game changing talent in those rounds.  That doesn't mean they weren't really good picks.  They were. Particularly Tatar.  If you get a guy who scores 20 goals a year, ever year, in the 2nd round you've done a REALLY good job. 

I do agree though that we seem to be back on track with our drafting.  And it's not even that we're drafting higher either.  Trading back for Mantha/Bert, and Cholo/Hronek, were awesome moves that don't get talked about enough.  Also, people LOVE to give Nill and McDonnell credit for Holland's successes but I never hear anyone say those guys are on the hook for Kindl, Smith, and Sheahan. 

Other teams have found them. Not blaming Holland for not finding them. But I sure wish that he had. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

24 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

I agree with the sentiment overall (I think Holland has done well especially in recent drafts since the Wright hiring) , but how exactly were these guys (bolded) great/good picks? Fringe NHLers/plugs. And these are the good ones. Forget about the McCollums, Ferraros, and Emmertons. 

I look at those guys in bold and I can live with them had there been at least one or two home-run picks. Like a Kucherov or a Josi. But if Brendan Smith and Xavier Ouellet are headlining your "Holland has drafted well" parade I think you'd have a lot of sad children. He had a bad spell between 2008 and 2014. s*** happens. Just sayin'. 

Fringe NHLers / plugs is all that is expected beyond the top 20 picks... Again, people really need to do their research on probability of draft picks turning into NHL players. Smith, Mrazek, Jurco, Ouellet and Frk were all solid picks, considering where they were drafted, and the likelihood of that draft selection becoming an NHL regular. No, none of them moved the needle, but all have played / will likely play 100+ games in the NHL. Teams have roughly a 15-20% chance in 2nd rounders hitting that mark, even less beyond the 2nd round.

I do agree that it would have been nice to had gotten a Kucherov or Josi, but only a handful of teams are lucky enough to pull those gems out of the 2nd or 3rd round every 10 years. You can't really fault Holland for not getting any true game breakers in the later rounds in the past 10-15 years. The best value pick we've gotten in that time is probably Nyquist taken in the 4th round.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

20 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Yzerman never managed a team to a Stanley Cup. 

Really? I could swear I remember them winning one in the teens somewhere besides the one in 04.

Oh well. Just goes to further show that Yzerman hasnt done a better job than Holland and the argument that he IS a better GM is based on bias, not actual results.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Neomaxizoomdweebie