News Article: Did the Detroit Red Wings Get Better?

[njx9]

Distraction and moving the goal posts. That's cool, I wouldn't have wanted to stand by that post, either.

If anything is disingenuous it’s describing the Wings as a mediocre, non-rebuilding team that due to Vanek and Green will be equal to the Minnesota Wild rather than staying in the bottom 5.

So no one should expect that adding veterans will result in more wins than not adding them would have?

”Wings suck so much! Look at all these bad veteran contracts.”
”What are the Wings doing? Signing veterans instead of being bad and rebuilding???”
Like.. pick one stance.

... Those aren't the same complaint. "The Wings are still not a winner, in spite of massively overspending on mediocre to worthless veterans" and "Why did the Wings sign a bunch of guys who aren't going to make them a contender, but are going to prevent them from getting the top-end talent they need to be competitive" are absolutely not opposing ideas.

This is so obvious that it's clear that the only point in the last post, or this one, is to try to simultaneously lie about everyone else's intentions (in order to cast them as negatively as possible), and to try to act like the arguments are so ridiculous they're not worth responding to, by pretending that they're even remotely similar.

 

[Flowah]

”Wings suck so much! Look at all these bad veteran contracts.”
”What are the Wings doing? Signing veterans instead of being bad and rebuilding???”
Like.. pick one stance.

I'll spell it out for you.

1. Signing veterans typically costs more. The ones we're getting aren't top tier. They aren't even a step down from that. They're all players who are clearly on the downhill of their careers.
2. Signing veterans takes up cap space and roster space.
3. With veterans you know what you're getting. They're typically consistent. Vanek and Green will keep the team steady, even if it's steadily bad. What they won't allow is for us to bottom out. Like literally last 2-3 spots.
4. Kids might be better. Might be worse. Might be the same. But there's benefits to all of them. If kids are better, great! Future looks good! We have players who aren't going to retire in the next 3 years, who we have rights to, who are cheaper. Awesome! If they're worse/inconsistent, we've helped the tank! Yaaaay! If they're the same, nothing lost, but cap/roster space gained. And it's always helpful to figure out exactly what you have in your picks. We're always guessing before they make the show. Educated guesses for sure, but guesses nonetheless. So Pulkkinen craps out and goes to Europe after blowing up the AHL. You need to see the kids to know what you have and knowing what you have is crucial in determining what to do with players and identifying your needs/weaknesses.

In short, yes the veterans we sign keep the team bad but not bad enough. Kids could make the team worse, better, or the same, but using kids over veterans brings many advantages that veterans don't.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Are people really serious with this non-sense???

Can’t believe I am seeing people pre-emptively discrediting the Zadina and Veleno picks in the event they become good players...

I’ve been ready to move on from Holland for awhile, but that is just ****ing ridiculous.

Any good pick that occurs outside the top 3 involves someone jumping on a guy other team’s shouldn’t have let slip. Holland chose to take Zadina even with a draft that featured some good defenseman and a glaring need on the back end. He deserves credit for that if it works out.

I don't really see what's upsetting about that statement from the article. It starts by saying the Wings nailed the first round. And it really was to the surprise of everyone that those guys fell the way they did. It really was basically a no-brainer for the Wings to take them.

If they turn into great players it's not like Holland swung some big deal to get them. Along the same lines, even if Zadina and Veleno were to wash out I don't think you could fault Holland for it given the consensus on those two players potential.

 

[newfy]

Not sure if we got worse, doesn't feel like we got better either. I'd say we're treading water unfortunately

Treading water as a bottom 5 team in the NHL. Treading water as a team who just had 4 picks in the top 36 last draft. I'm not sure whats unfortunate about that.

Keeping Green and signing Vanek is going to give the young guys a little bit of skill to play with while being bottom 5 and then gain another pick at the deadline.

Do people really want a defense that relies on someone like Jensen or Kronwall to be trying to move the puck to Larkin, Mantha, Zadina and Rasmussen? How are they going to develop if they have literally no one that can move the puck? Green isnt great anymore but the guy can still skate and move the puck adnd has some offensive awareness

 

[Frk It]

I don't really see what's upsetting about that statement from the article. It starts by saying the Wings nailed the first round. And it really was to the surprise of everyone that those guys fell the way they did. It really was basically a no-brainer for the Wings to take them.

I've seen it a bunch and it comes across very belittling to me, like it's all "dumb luck".

It really was basically a no-brainer for the Wings to take them.

See, I don't think it was. You don't think there was any pressure for the GM with the worst blue line in the NHL to take a defenseman? Hughes, Boqvist, Dobson, Bouchard are pretty damn good defenseman prospects. Passing on those guys has the potential to make you look bad just like passing on Zadina does.

 

[Pavels Dog]

With veterans you know what you're getting. They're typically consistent. Vanek and Green will keep the team steady, even if it's steadily bad. What they won't allow is for us to bottom out. Like literally last 2-3 spots

I’ll keep it brief since there seems to be some hostility here;

We were 3 points out of the bottom 3. With Green. Keeping the team steady means a bounce or two away from the last 2-3 spots.

 

[Oddbob]

Nothing done this offseason, crippled or changed the rebuild at all. We already had Green and Vanek and lost, so once again we will get a decent top 10 pick to add to a now growing good prospect pool. Nyquist will fetch us more lottery balls, and maybe Vanek gets us another 3rd. People are overblowing everything, we are fine. We basically have the same team as last year, and the chance that Ras and Zad make the team for significant lengths of the season, people need to stop dwelling on the old 2012 -2014/15 of adding and not rebuilding. The past 2+ seasons, all of Ken Hollands moves have given us the chance to improve for the future, not the present, which is what we all want.

As far as the guy who wrote this piece, he just sounds like a massively uniformed ignorant non Wings fan! The fact that he points out Chris Terry and even has a blurb on him, is PATHETIC! Literally every team in the league signs veteran players with the sole purpose of playing on the AHL team, every single one! Like Holland signed Terry with the thought, oh yeah he is is gonna be top 6 on our team, give me a break!

 

[Snuggs]

I think they actually got marginally better. Added a PP threat/top 6 winger, Better back up goalie(assuming), lost essentially no one(Ouellett if you thought/think anything of him)... yet, Upgrades and in the air with Hronek/Rasmussen/Zadina imo. All of whom I think have a chance to play and do well.

They're also in position to add picks/assets by moving Nyquist/Vanek/Glendenning/Daley/Jensen/Howard/Frk, do whatever you can to move Helm/Abdelkader/Nielson/ ask if Zetterberg/Kronwall(Likely not) want to be moved, if so do whatever you can to get them on a contender for something. I don't expect all or even a handful to be moved but any of these names moved by next seasons trade deadline wouldn't surprise me in the least bit.

Idk, it's another rebuild year like everyone is saying, like year 2-3 of it. I don't know what they wanted the Red Wings to do.

I say they're better than last year but that doesn't mean I think they're a playoff team... Prolly still picking between that 5-10 range imo again with our hat in the lottery. Unless something really special happens with Hronek/Rasmussen/Zadina on the team.

 

[Shaman464]

I've seen it a bunch and it comes across very belittling to me, like it's all "dumb luck".



See, I don't think it was. You don't think there was any pressure for the GM with the worst blue line in the NHL to take a defenseman? Hughes, Boqvist, Dobson, Bouchard are pretty damn good defenseman prospects. Passing on those guys has the potential to make you look bad just like passing on Zadina does.

It is dumb luck though when the guy who is the 2nd best forward and third best player on the board falls as far as he did. Its not a knock. No one plans on a top 3 talent falling.

 

[raymond23]

They'll be better if Hronek and Cholowski play.

So we'll probably be worse.

 

[Shaman464]

I think they actually got marginally better. Added a PP threat/top 6 winger, Better back up goalie(assuming), lost essentially no one(Ouellett if you thought/think anything of him)... yet, Upgrades and in the air with Hronek/Rasmussen/Zadina imo. All of whom I think have a chance to play and do well.

They're also in position to add picks/assets by moving Nyquist/Vanek/Glendenning/Daley/Jensen/Howard/Frk, do whatever you can to move Helm/Abdelkader/Nielson/ ask if Zetterberg/Kronwall(Likely not) want to be moved, if so do whatever you can to get them on a contender for something. I don't expect all or even a handful to be moved but any of these names moved by next seasons trade deadline wouldn't surprise me in the least bit.

Idk, it's another rebuild year like everyone is saying, like year 2-3 of it. I don't know what they wanted the Red Wings to do.

I say they're better than last year but that doesn't mean I think they're a playoff team... Prolly still picking between that 5-10 range imo again with our hat in the lottery. Unless something really special happens with Hronek/Rasmussen/Zadina on the team.

I wouldn't hold your breath on any major sales at the deadline. Nyquist might be the only real asset up for trade.

 

[Frk It]

It is dumb luck though when the guy who is the 2nd best forward and third best player on the board falls as far as he did. Its not a knock. No one plans on a top 3 talent falling.

That's an opinion. I think Zadina was the 3rd best player in the draft, but the fact that 3 teams before us didn't think so tells you it's not some indisputable fact like you are trying to make it out to be.

Maybe he deserved to fall. Maybe he didn't. There was some luck involved, but if it works out and he turns out better than the defensman I will consider that a smart pick. The temptation was certainly obviously there to go a different direction.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I've seen it a bunch and it comes across very belittling to me, like it's all "dumb luck".



See, I don't think it was. You don't think there was any pressure for the GM with the worst blue line in the NHL to take a defenseman? Hughes, Boqvist, Dobson, Bouchard are pretty damn good defenseman prospects. Passing on those guys has the potential to make you look bad just like passing on Zadina does.

I'm sure there was pressure to take a defenseman but with the general lack of elite talent on the Wings, when guys like that unexpectedly become available, you have to take them.

Passing on those guys to take Zadina could only look bad in some revisionist history someone tried to sell. But at the time it was pretty clearly the right move.

 

[Frk It]

I'm sure there was pressure to take a defenseman but with the general lack of elite talent on the Wings, when guys like that unexpectedly become available, you have to take them.

Passing on those guys to take Zadina could only look bad in some revisionist history someone tried to sell. But at the time it was pretty clearly the right move.

No idea what you mean with the first sentence in that 2nd paragraph. I do not think this was some no-brainier choice, I guess that's just where we disagree fundamentally.

The draft is all about making the best decision for your team possible, and it's entirely possible that we passed on guys who become impact players at a position we have been desperate to fill for forever.

 

[Bench]

No idea what you mean with the first sentence in that 2nd paragraph. I do not think this was some no-brainier choice, I guess that's just where we disagree fundamentally.

The draft is all about making the best decision for your team possible, and it's entirely possible that we passed on guys who become impact players at a position we have been desperate to fill for over a decade.

It's essentially the argument of best available player vs. glaring team need. Usually BAP is the standard mechanism, but man, hard to justify at times when a team is struggling at the most important position, the blueline.

 

[Shaman464]

That's an opinion. I think Zadina was the 3rd best player in the draft, but the fact that 3 teams before us didn't think so tells you it's not some indisputable fact like you are trying to make it out to be.

Maybe he deserved to fall. Maybe he didn't. There was some luck involved, but if it works out and he turns out better than the defensman I will consider that a smart pick. The temptation was certainly obviously there to go a different direction.

The problem with calling Zadina a smart pick is that he was highly regarded. He was a near consensus #3, and of the top 10 sources for pre-draft rankings he averaged #3, with a high of #2 and a low of #4. There was literally nearly no spread. Its not like picking off the board. If Ty Dellandrea becomes a top line center that's a smart pick because it was a reach. So, again, he by any objective measure fell from the top 3, and that takes luck. And that luck was based around 3 teams drafting based on need, not on BPA.

 

[Frk It]

The problem with calling Zadina a smart pick is that he was highly regarded. He was a near consensus #3, and of the top 10 sources for pre-draft rankings he averaged #3, with a high of #2 and a low of #4. There was literally nearly no spread. Its not like picking off the board. If Ty Dellandrea becomes a top line center that's a smart pick because it was a reach. So, again, he by any objective measure fell from the top 3, and that takes luck. And that luck was based around 3 teams drafting based on need, not on BPA.

Teams don’t draft based on the public scouting services lists we all look at.

The only person (Bob McKenzie) who does rankings based on actual feedback from NHL scouts said this in his final ranking:

For example, while Zadina is still very much a consensus top-five pick, relative to the other prospects, five of 10 scouts surveyed by TSN ranked him outside their top five. Five scouts had him in the top five, including three of them at No. 3, but he had three 6’s, a 7 and a 9 as well. That’s a far cry from the mid-season polling, when all of Zadina’s marks came in between 2 and 4.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Maybe.... I know I still had three players ranked ahead of Zadina when we walked to the podium... We know the five teams before them certainly did. It was also out there in the week buildup that he might fall.

I hope he makes this look like a no-brainer decision. I don't think it was at all.

I have been fortunate enough to see a few draft boards over the years. The general public would be amazed at what they actually look like in my opinion.

 

[Frk It]

It's essentially the argument of best available player vs. glaring team need. Usually BAP is the standard mechanism, but man, hard to justify at times when a team is struggling at the most important position, the blueline.

It’s not like Dobson, Hughes, Boqvist, or Bouchard are slouches by any means. This was a very good defenseman class this year. I would have struggled with the #6 pick for Detroit this year, personally.

 

[golffuul]

Green is protection against losing Kronwall either to injury this year or retirement, next year. Gives us 2 more years to develop a d-man to make the top 4. Vanek is protection against Zetterberg. Bernier gives us a veteran presence at goalie, when we trade Howard and Nyquist at the deadline.

Detroit is, for once, positioned correctly to at least have their bases covered should we want to continue (as we should) rebuild the team. I honestly think it could help shorten the rebuild time, because we will be in a good position, salary-wise, to make moves to better the team in the future.

I actually have to commend Holland on his choice of FA signings. He's really nailed everything from the Draft and on, this year.

 

[SCD]

If they do play the kids, I think our goals for will increase. However, I think the goals against will increase even more. It will be a wash. It will still be tough to be worse than Ottawa or Montreal.

 

[ricky0034]

I feel like this draft is kinda set up for disappointment in a way

I think a pretty likely scenario is that Zadina ends up being a very good Winger just shy of elite,two of the Defensemen end up being disappointing low end second/third pairing types,one of them ends up being a good second pairing guy that maybe plays okay on a first pairing with the right partner and one becomes a very good first pairing guy

people will focus in on the first pairing Defensemen but would Holland have even drafted the "right" guy? we'll never know for sure,but get ready to hear about it for the next two decades

 

[Shaman464]

Teams don’t draft based on the public scouting services lists we all look at.

The only person (Bob McKenzie) who does rankings based on actual feedback from NHL scouts said this in his final ranking:

Even if you only agree with McKenzie the Zadina pick is still not some master stroke by the Red Wings, and was taken around where he was expected. And, Pronman, who I would say is as or nearly as connected as McKenzie within organizations had him firmly at 3, so did McKenzie himself, and other well regarded analysts and former scouts. So again, it wasn't like this was some amazing decision that was outside the box thinking. It was a great pick, no doubt, but to say there wasn't a major element of luck to him falling does a disservice to the factors that lead to him falling and Zadina himself.

 

[Frk It]

Even if you only agree with McKenzie the Zadina pick is still not some master stroke by the Red Wings, and was taken around where he was expected. And, Pronman, who I would say is as or nearly as connected as McKenzie within organizations had him firmly at 3, so did McKenzie himself, and other well regarded analysts and former scouts. So again, it wasn't like this was some amazing decision that was outside the box thinking. It was a great pick, no doubt, but to say there wasn't a major element of luck to him falling does a disservice to the factors that lead to him falling and Zadina himself.

I don’t think that only reaches that deviate from the rankings make smart picks, personally.

I can agree there was some luck with what went down. But I’ve been wanting a draft like this with some high end skilled players for awhile now. So it’s just annoying when we finally do it and have a draft most people feel good about we can’t just say “good job Wings”... we have to find a way to disqualify it.

But that’s just my .02

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

I feel like this draft is kinda set up for disappointment in a way

I think a pretty likely scenario is that Zadina ends up being a very good Winger just shy of elite,two of the Defensemen end up being disappointing low end second/third pairing types,one of them ends up being a good second pairing guy that maybe plays okay on a first pairing with the right partner and one becomes a very good first pairing guy

people will focus in on the first pairing Defensemen but would Holland have even drafted the "right" guy? we'll never know for sure,but get ready to hear about it for the next two decades

Since 2015 draft we have 10+ Dmen in our system. Any specifics on whom you think fits those 1st pairing & low end 2nd/3rd pairing disappointments? Feel free to


My take on what I've read everywhere:
Cholo, Hronek ...both 1st pair ceiling/tweener, likely 2nd pair 3a/3b with a 4b floor ...I see 3a/#3b
Lindstrom-Saarijarvi ...both 2nd pair ceiling, #7/bust floor ...I see a very good (unorthodox) 3rd pairing
Sulak-Hicketts ...both #4b/5a ceiling, #6/7/bust floor ...must make immediate impact or AHL career awaits.
McIssac-Regula ...both 2nd pair ceiling, #7/bust floor ...TooSoonToTell TBD
Kotkinsalo-Setkov ...both #4b/5a ceiling, #6/7/bust floor...may never make NHL