• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Dabura

3/14 Conductor GDT - Lightning @ Red Wings - 7:30 PM ET

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Well yeah, we're not tanking as in purposely losing games. But the bolded parts is basically the way of getting a high draft pick. Which is what people equate to modern day tank. Neo was of the opinion that we don't get rid of Nyquist for draft picks. That we keep the secondary guys around, finish in the 20th place which is supposed to be more respectable than finishing last and build through that.

I'm saying that's stupid. Pardon my bluntness. 

Right. I guess that post was addressed more to Neo. You and I seem to be on the same page here.

I mean, I get it. Lots of people say pretty stupid things in support of hardcore, take-no-prisoners tanking. Lots of people want to see everything burned to the ground. Lots of people think it's Hughes/Kakko or bust.

I'm not down with that and I think Neo is right to call bulls*** there. But I submit that if you're posting on a forum like LGW.com on a daily basis, then you probably have a reasonably nuanced take on the whole "tanking" thing.

You and I, for example, are firmly in favor of the approach Holland has taken, and it's not because we think "Being bad is the only way to get top talent." Rather, we think it's the best path forward. It doesn't guarantee anything. It has its inherent risks. But, personally, I think it's way more appealing than treading water indefinitely, which is what we did from about 2012 to about 2017.

21 minutes ago, kickazz said:

First round pick. Jack Hughes.

Even the post dead wings era; when we drafted Yzerman with the 4th pick; its been said that it was an instant seller and caught the attention of many. Yzerman singlehandedly  sold tickets and brought life to Red Wing hockey. 

Superstars sell tickets. They make everyone around them better and they win championships. 

Getting Hughes or Kakko is the dream scenario, but even a guy like Byram or Cozens would be an enormous add and could end up generating a lot of excitement and being a worth-the-price-of-admission player.

Eeeeeeeveryone hates our D situation. Byram would give us an honest-to-goodness elite D prospect who projects as a 1D.

Eeeeeeeveryone wishes we could add a guy who's 6'3" and skates like the wind and plays a power game and is a natural born goal-scorer with a lethal shot. Cozens checks all of those boxes.

Point is, we'll be getting an elite prospect with out first pick. And we'll be adding that prospect to the other very promising prospects we have in the system. And we'll have nine more picks after that first pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the claim that the Wings aren't all that bad (and that moving Nyquist was, therefore, a miscalculation)...I agree and I disagree.

We've lost a ton of one-goal games. Encouraging? Maybe. Fool's gold? Probably.

We lose lots of games by only one goal, but it tends to be the opposition's superior top talent and superior depth that ultimately decides the outcome. When it's do-or-die time in the 3rd period of a close game and "next goal wins it," you want to be able to match your opponent's talent. If you can't, you're going to lose the majority of those games.

We don't have the talent. Maybe soon, but not right now. We're "so close, yet so far."

Nyquist? I don't think Nyquist really moves the needle in either direction. Mostly I just didn't want him on a $5M x 5 contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kickazz said:

First round pick. Jack Hughes.

Even the post dead wings era; when we drafted Yzerman with the 4th pick; its been said that it was an instant seller and caught the attention of many. Yzerman singlehandedly  sold tickets and brought life to Red Wing hockey. 

Superstars sell tickets. They make everyone around them better and they win championships. 

And who was picked 1st and 2nd in that draft? Brian Lawton and Sylvain Turgeon. Wow what studs those 2 turned out to be . I guess Minnesota and the NY Islanders were glad they got to pick first and 2nd that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kickazz said:

Yes the franchise is a joke now, the team confidence is so low that Larkin and AA can't even put up 20 goals. Player development is so terrible that we haven't managed to put together a franchise center yet. This guy Zadina we picked up is lazy and he sucks. Can't even shoot, could barely play in the NHL with the lackadaisical attitude in the locker room. 

You’re excused and so is your argument that would get the Red Wings nowhere aside from making you feel better. 

You found 2 exceptions. That totally ruins my point. L o l. Zadina only played in a handful of games, so now ur just grasping at straws. If you believe that losing has no effect on a team, then I hope this team never loses cuz that woukd mean they don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dabura said:

The Wings aren't even really tanking, so this whole argument is sort of stupid.

The team is bad and Holland has concluded there isn't anything he can do to dramatically change that in the here and now, so he's making the best of a bad situation.

Making the best of a bad situation = transition years (younger guys stepping into bigger roles, some older guys getting phased out), trading some non-core pieces at the deadline, getting a lot of picks.

It's a bad situation, but it's also sort of nice (albeit in a perverse way), as this organization desperately needs a major infusion of high-end young talent and it's exceedingly difficult to get that when you're doing everything in your power to make the playoffs every year. (Which is why we're in the situation we're in.)

We're getting a big shot in the arm over two or three years instead of the painfully slow drip that we'd grown accustomed to, the painfully slow drip that would run indefinitely until we'd basically lucked into the two or three franchise players that we need in order to open up a legitimate, sustainable Cup window.

Many people had grown tired of the slow drip. Many of these people think "tanking" is the way to go. We can debate semantics until we're blue in the face. At the end of the day, the reality is that the team is bad and Holland has changed his approach in an attempt to get the organization back to relevance in as short a time as possible.

Thus far, Holland's approach has paid off pretty well; he's moved out a few players that were deemed expendable and he's managed to add a lot of high-end(ish) young talent in a relatively short span of time.

Again, last year's draft basically got us four years' worth of 1st-round picks. We might be looking at a similar return in this year's draft. At the very least, this draft will be giving us one elite prospect, quite possibly the best prospect we've had in a very long time (even if it isn't Hughes or Kakko).

I'm going to link to this piece again:

Red Wings won't 'sit back' in attempt to rebuild [NHL.com] (October 25, 2018)

When I say I'm fine with tanking and I claim that Holland is embracing the suck, what I basically mean is that I'm down with what Devellano and Cotsonika are saying in this piece.

Highlights:

Embrace the suck, but don't enjoy it. Hate every minute of it. And always have some form of an "IN CASE OF EMERGENCY BREAK GLASS" escape plan. Don't trust that 30 picks spread across three consecutive drafts will definitely get you to where you want to be. At the same time, recognize that this is an opportunity to set things right and put this organization "back in business" in a relatively short time.

That's what I think the brass should be doing and that's what I think the brass *is* doing.

What I take from it is that they havent embraced the tank mentality. Sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings isn't being aggressive at all and is contrary to what Devellano said. I don't think they've embraced losing at all. I think they've accepted that this team isn't as good as they would like it to be, but losing is unacceptable, period. And I don't think they're of the mindset that losing is good because it improves their chances in the lottery. The comments about the lottery and draft contradict that. Pretty much what I have been saying and getting ripped for.

 

Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

And who was picked 1st and 2nd in that draft? Brian Lawton and Sylvain Turgeon. Wow what studs those 2 turned out to be . I guess Minnesota and the NY Islanders were glad they got to pick first and 2nd that year.

Yzerman was a 4th pick not 20th. Check how many in the top 10 in 83 draft made HoF. Then check the from pick 10-20. Do the math and look up the word "probability". 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dabura said:

As for the claim that the Wings aren't all that bad (and that moving Nyquist was, therefore, a miscalculation)...I agree and I disagree.

We've lost a ton of one-goal games. Encouraging? Maybe. Fool's gold? Probably.

We lose lots of games by only one goal, but it tends to be the opposition's superior top talent and superior depth that ultimately decides the outcome. When it's do-or-die time in the 3rd period of a close game and "next goal wins it," you want to be able to match your opponent's talent. If you can't, you're going to lose the majority of those games.

We don't have the talent. Maybe soon, but not right now. We're "so close, yet so far."

Nyquist? I don't think Nyquist really moves the needle in either direction. Mostly I just didn't want him on a $5M x 5 contract.

Yeah I mean if it was a superstar player then you keep him for sure; no questions asked. But a guy like Nyquist that ultimately wasn't really a difference maker (a good player but not the type that would change the momentum of a game) isn't worth throwing money at for 5 years or something. 

Put it this way, if it was 37 year old Datsyuk instead of  29 year old Nyquist on the trade deadline, this year, I would have kept older Datsyuk. That guy could convert a 1 goal game into a tie or a tie into a last minute lead easily and almost with a guarantee. 

16 hours ago, Dabura said:

You and I, for example, are firmly in favor of the approach Holland has taken, and it's not because we think "Being bad is the only way to get top talent." Rather, we think it's the best path forward. It doesn't guarantee anything. It has its inherent risks. But, personally, I think it's way more appealing than treading water indefinitely, which is what we did from about 2012 to about 2017.

 

If we wen't back to becoming super try-hards that kept getting 20th picks and kept getting early playoff round eliminations I would go crazy. That 2012-2017 limbo period was very frustrating. Zet and Dats just didn't have the help. We need to build correctly and Holland has more of less echoed this. 1-2 years of good high end draft picks and we might be there. I'm honestly excited for this years draft more than any draft since I've been alive just because we might end up getting #1. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

What I take from it is that they havent embraced the tank mentality. Sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings isn't being aggressive at all and is contrary to what Devellano said. I don't think they've embraced losing at all. I think they've accepted that this team isn't as good as they would like it to be, but losing is unacceptable, period. And I don't think they're of the mindset that losing is good because it improves their chances in the lottery. The comments about the lottery and draft contradict that. Pretty much what I have been saying and getting ripped for.

I don't believe anyone in the organization thinks losing is a good thing. However, "sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings" is, to me, "embracing the suck." It's accepting the notion that losing a ton of games is ok. And why is it ok? Because of the deep hole the organization is in and the potential benefits of selling assets, stockpiling picks, and picking relatively early in every round.

Like kickazz said, that's pretty much what tanking is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kickazz said:

If we wen't back to becoming super try-hards that kept getting 20th picks and kept getting early playoff round eliminations I would go crazy. That 2012-2017 limbo period was very frustrating. Zet and Dats just didn't have the help. We need to build correctly and Holland has more of less echoed this. 1-2 years of good high end draft picks and we might be there. I'm honestly excited for this years draft more than any draft since I've been alive just because we might end up getting #1. 

Losing is never acceptable (except when it is).

You are a terrible person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kickazz said:

Yeah I mean if it was a superstar player then you keep him for sure; no questions asked. But a guy like Nyquist that ultimately wasn't really a difference maker (a good player but not the type that would change the momentum of a game) isn't worth throwing money at for 5 years or something. 

Put it this way, if it was 37 year old Datsyuk instead of  29 year old Nyquist on the trade deadline, this year, I would have kept older Datsyuk. That guy could convert a 1 goal game into a tie or a tie into a last minute lead easily and almost with a guarantee. 

If we wen't back to becoming super try-hards that kept getting 20th picks and kept getting early playoff round eliminations I would go crazy. That 2012-2017 limbo period was very frustrating. Zet and Dats just didn't have the help. We need to build correctly and Holland has more of less echoed this. 1-2 years of good high end draft picks and we might be there. I'm honestly excited for this years draft more than any draft since I've been alive just because we might end up getting #1. 

I'm excited every year for the draft, because I'm a draft nerd... I'm more excited for this year's draft lottery for that reason though. April 9th baby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dabura said:

I don't believe anyone in the organization thinks losing is a good thing. However, "sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings" is, to me, "embracing the suck." It's accepting the notion that losing a ton of games is ok. And why is it ok? Because of the deep hole the organization is in and the potential benefits of selling assets, stockpiling picks, and picking relatively early in every round.

Like kickazz said, that's pretty much what tanking is.

You and I read this totally differently. Sitting still and falling in the standings (losing) is unacceptable to them (tanking). I don't think they're embracing it at all. Losing a ton of games is never ok, and they'll do whatever it takes to not be a loser. That's how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

You and I read this totally differently. Sitting still and falling in the standings (losing) is unacceptable to them (tanking). I don't think they're embracing it at all.

I think you're too hung up on the word "embracing." I'm not saying they're jumping up and down and celebrating that the team sucks. I'm saying they're owning it. They're allowing things to unfold naturally, for the time being.

 

Share this post


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

I think you're too hung up on the word "embracing." I'm not saying they're jumping up and down and celebrating that the team sucks. I'm saying they're owning it. They're allowing things to unfold naturally, for the time being.

 

"There is nothing natural about losing." - Said some coach somewhere I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

"There is nothing natural about losing." - Said some coach somewhere I'm sure.

Sure. But I feel like you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing.

Team is bad. Holland is "sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings," i.e. he's allowing the team to suck, i.e. he's "embracing" the suck, i.e. he's "tanking."

I get it. Losing is bad and unacceptable. But you're beating that drum while also acknowledging that Holland isn't exactly doing everything in his power to make sure the team is finishing as far away from 31st overall as possible. Why didn't he buy at the trade deadline? Why is he allowing rookies to take on expanded roles? Why aren't we all in on trying to climb the standings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just occurred to me that I might've been reading you wrong and you're actually saying Holland *ISN'T* "sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings."

If that's your position...well, I guess we still disagree. Because I think that is, in fact, what Holland is doing.

Share this post


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

It just occurred to me that I might've been reading you wrong and you're actually saying Holland *ISN'T* "sitting back and letting the team tumble in the standings."

If that's your position...well, I guess we still disagree. Because I think that is, in fact, what Holland is doing.

IDK. I dont remember what I've said most of the time.

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
Sign in to follow this