• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Dabura

Official 2019 Offseason Rebuild Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

What/who do you think Larkin is worth?  A lot of people on here think he's untouchable.

No player is "untouchable" in the true sense of the word. It's cliché, but true, if Gretzky can be traded, any player can be traded. I'm sure if Edmonton were offered Dahlin, Eichel, Mittelstadt, and a 1st round pick for McDavid and Lucic, they'd bite.

Larkin is untouchable in the sense that there is no trade that another team would be willing to make that would make enough sense for us to pull the trigger. We're not getting Dahlin or McDavid for Larkin. Why would we want to trade him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Mike Babcock has quickly become the most overrated coach in modern hockey. He's won 1 stanley cup and gets paid 50 million for some atrocious contract and has barely put a dent in the playoff run for the Leafs. The Leafs won't win a cup under current dumb contract he's on. They'll probably re-sign him though. 

And anyone who says "well he won all those Gold medals for Canada". That's like crediting the USA coach for the Basketball team in the Olympics and ignoring the fact that those teams had Kobe, Shaq, Lebron James, etc on them. 

I get it, we all hate the leafs, but their sitting right now as one of the best teams in the league, lets see how they manage this playoff run, but there's not a whole lot to criticize them on at the current moment, they're light years ahead of the Wings on all sides of the puck right now and ya'll just sound foolish

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kliq said:

I have to agree with Cady here, Larkin is not untouchable. I have zero desire to trade him, but if the right offer came along, I'd move him. With that said, the chances of that happening are pretty much slim to none.

Yeah, I mean, it's basically semantics. "Untouchable" = "I'd trade him for Rasmus Dahlin." Translation: He's not going anywhere, because no one's going to offer us that hypothetical deal that's too good to refuse.

Mind you, I'm just talking about the here and now. Maybe five years from now things have changed so much that moving Larkin is a worthwhile discussion. Though, even then, we're talking about the captain of the team, who will still be in his 20s and who will still be on a good contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No player is "untouchable" in the true sense of the word. It's cliché, but true, if Gretzky can be traded, any player can be traded. I'm sure if Edmonton were offered Dahlin, Eichel, Mittelstadt, and a 1st round pick for McDavid and Lucic, they'd bite.

Larkin is untouchable in the sense that there is no trade that another team would be willing to make that would make enough sense for us to pull the trigger. We're not getting Dahlin or McDavid for Larkin. Why would we want to trade him? 

I tend to agree with this.  It would have to be a lights out trade like Ekblad+Trochek+1st Rounder.  Not going to sacrifice 22 year old captain material for older #1D material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, having said all that...if this is a Leafs forum, we're all 100% down with trading Larkin for whatever we can get in return because we'll never win a Cup with this bum because he slammed his stick against the boards a couple nights ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Now, having said all that...if this is a Leafs forum, we're all 100% down with trading Larkin for whatever we can get in return because we'll never win a Cup with this bum because he slammed his stick against the boards a couple nights ago.

The natural progression:

1. Blame 3rd pairing Dman
2. Blame coach
3. Blame goalie
4. Blame GM <--- you are here
5. Blame star players <--- Toronto, Ottawa, and Dallas are here
6. Blame Franzen <---- The Dalai Lama and Jesus are here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The natural progression:

1. Blame 3rd pairing Dman
2. Blame coach
3. Blame goalie
4. Blame GM <--- you are here
5. Blame star players <--- Toronto, Ottawa, and Dallas are here
6. Blame Franzen <---- The Dalai Lama and Jesus are here

I'm just waiting to see who their next Larry Murphy is. Whoever it is, I hope he likes hot dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I'm just waiting to see who their next Larry Murphy is. Whoever it is, I hope he likes hot dogs.

It was those scuba mask glasses he put on during his last season. Larry, we wanted to see your beautiful hot dog maw, don't hide that pretty face behind those gigantic frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now