wings7 62 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 Go ahead and tell that to the 22 teams that didn't make the playoffs this year. 22? Do you even know how many teams make the playoffs and are in the NHL? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,751 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 You wrote more than you needed to. My whole point is that Holland's previous successes shouldn't give him immunity at his current job. Immunity is dangerous at any job. If I had immunity at my job, I'd have strippers and scotch here every day But it's not just "past successes". That's the point. He's still a very successful GM, and his teams are still very successful. It's not like we're stinking up the place, missing the playoffs, and competing for lottery picks. I agree that you should have total immunity at your job. But you also shouldn't be fired if you don't remain at the absolute apex of your industry in perpetuity. We've gone six years since our last Cup. Exactly the same amount of time between our Cups in 2002 and 2008. It would have been a mistake to fire Holland back then, and it would be a mistake now. 1 F.Michael reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 But it's not just "past successes". That's the point. He's still a very successful GM, and his teams are still very successful. It's not like we're stinking up the place, missing the playoffs, and competing for lottery picks. I agree that you should have total immunity at your job. But you also shouldn't be fired if you don't remain at the absolute apex of your industry in perpetuity. We've gone six years since our last Cup. Exactly the same amount of time between our Cups in 2002 and 2008. It would have been a mistake to fire Holland back then, and it would be a mistake now. Seven years. And counting........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaman 713 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 Holland is too safe. In the cap era you have to take risks, and he is risk adverse. I think this is reflective of the fact he is safe in his job, so long as he sails the ship of mediocrity he is safe. Why take risks to win a cup when he can keep his job just ekking in the playoffs and getting bounced early? This team needs new blood, young kids, bold moves and swinging for the fences! 1 evilmrt reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) The losing out on free agents bit is getting old. The number of viable free agents is limited and the prices are usually way too high. Fans just want to throw out money at anyone, thinking they're better than what the Wings have. If the Wings were losing out to trendy cities and organizations who win more, that could be used as an argument, but that isn't exactly the case. Free agents now take other things into consideration, like family, team mates, friends, etc. As you saw in Boston, when you're not mindful of the salary cap, it's easy to get burned. It's a balancing act. I think Holland has done and admirable job transitioning this team from a blank check team to a team that has been successful in the salary cap era. No fans want much needed help and not penny pinching. It's also funny how all the Holland fans arae talking like the transistion period is over no it isn't in fact I really hope they don't wait as long as they did with Lids, Rafalski and are better prepared for it because otherwise things will get much worse. Seven years. And counting........ 4 years 3 first round exits. What's needed here is a change of philosophy and maybe a more rebuildlike approach than trying to hang on each and every year for that last playoff spot because that's exactly what has doomed Calgary before they've decided to go into rebuild mode. Also this "everything can happen once you get in" is just nuts the LA Kings before their first cup have already been picked by a lot of people to at least make it to the WCF, then they did have a subpar season plus Lombardi adds another weapon in Carter and boom they finally played like a well oiled machine. The Wings were picked to miss the playoffs or not having any chance in the first round, nobody in their right mind picked them to go depp so this is not like a Kings situation. I think what Holland needs is some ownership mandates and a change of philosophy. Bring in young blood and maybe move out some veterans as long as they are still having value Edited April 30, 2015 by frankgrimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wings7 62 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 No fans want much needed help and not penny pinching. It's also funny how all the Holland fans arae talking like the transistion period is over no it isn't in fact I really hope they don't wait as long as they did with Lids, Rafalski and are better prepared for it because otherwise things will get much worse. 4 years 3 first round exits. What's needed here is a change of philosophy and maybe a more rebuildlike approach than trying to hang on each and every year for that last playoff spot because that's exactly what has doomed Calgary before they've decided to go into rebuild mode. Also this "everything can happen once you get in" is just nuts the LA Kings before their first cup have already been picked by a lot of people to at least make it to the WCF, then they did have a subpar season plus Lombardi adds another weapon in Carter and boom they finally played like a well oiled machine. The Wings were picked to miss the playoffs or not having any chance in the first round, nobody in their right mind picked them to go depp so this is not like a Kings situation. I think what Holland needs is some ownership mandates and a change of philosophy. Bring in young blood and maybe move out some veterans as long as they are still having value We are plenty young! We need reliable NHL talent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Internet.Unknown 422 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 And then, you remember the 2009 SCFs... You got me there. I'm too ashamed to admit how long I quit watching hockey after that. Broke my heart ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,751 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 Seven years. And counting........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 We are plenty young! We need reliable NHL talent. And how does one bring them in ? Either UFA or trades. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 30, 2015 You wrote more than you needed to. My whole point is that Holland's previous successes shouldn't give him immunity at his current job. Immunity is dangerous at any job. If I had immunity at my job, I'd have strippers and scotch here every day If the only measure of success is winning the Stanley Cup every single year (and or signing McGrattan), then yes, Holland is a failure and so is every other GM in professional sports. To me, putting competitive teams on the ice year after year, doing an exceptional job drafting when it can be a total crap shoot, grooming executives that are coveted by other teams, staying ahead of the curve when it comes to the CBA and the salary cap is a success. It's like saying Miguel Cabrera isn't a success because he gets out roughly 68% of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) If the only measure of success is winning the Stanley Cup every single year (and or signing McGrattan), then yes, Holland is a failure and so is every other GM in professional sports. To me, putting competitive teams on the ice year after year, doing an exceptional job drafting when it can be a total crap shoot, grooming executives that are coveted by other teams, staying ahead of the curve when it comes to the CBA and the salary cap is a success. It's like saying Miguel Cabrera isn't a success because he gets out roughly 68% of the time. How do you define "competitive"? Making the playoffs every year and losing in the early round? If so, then I agree that we're competitive. Since when do we need to measure team success against Edmonton and Buffalo? Edited April 30, 2015 by GMRwings1983 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,751 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 How do you define "competitive"? Making the playoffs every year and losing in the early round? If so, then I agree that we're competitive. Since when do we need to measure team success against Edmonton and Buffalo? How often would we need to win the Cup for you to consider our organization "competitive" if we aren't now? 1 Hey man nice shot! reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
romagoth 47 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 22? Do you even know how many teams make the playoffs and are in the NHL? Yeah, see my other post where I responded to a correction to that number. Oh, and they weren't being snarky. Thanks. How do you define "competitive"? Making the playoffs every year and losing in the early round? If so, then I agree that we're competitive. Since when do we need to measure team success against Edmonton and Buffalo? I would say that yes, making the playoffs every year IS defined as competitive. I have never heard of a sports franchise that wins championships every year, especially in this day of parity in pro sports. 1 Internet.Unknown reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Internet.Unknown 422 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 The sooner some people realize that the Wings are going to do everything they can to keep the streak alive, the better. P.S. I'm just the messenger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 30, 2015 How do you define "competitive"? Making the playoffs every year and losing in the early round? If so, then I agree that we're competitive. Since when do we need to measure team success against Edmonton and Buffalo? Who would you like to compare the Wings success to then? Which team is it that makes the CF or SCF every single year for 10 years or more? 1 F.Michael reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
romagoth 47 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 Agreed. Parity has seen teams missing the playoffs with a winning record...Other teams that have had success these past several years all have 1 thing in common - they sucked for the better portion of several years, and getting lucky via the draft. The humor of it all is how some of the GM's that led their team to success were the 1st to have their heads lopped off these past few weeks. Chiarelli going to Edmonton is interesting. He might just be what they need to finally turn those young players into a cohesive unit. Or not... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaman 713 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 How often would we need to win the Cup for you to consider our organization "competitive" if we aren't now? I would be call them competitive if they were contenders most years. The trend lately is they are first round fodder, with a chance they may eek into the 2nd round. Not really what I call competitive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lwing 68 Report post Posted April 30, 2015 At what point? In Detroit the point will far exceed any other standard of failure. For example I believe many Detroiters are only now acknowledging a problem with employment in the auto industry. Others are noticing that there may be an issue with vacant buildings. Who knows. Some time in 2034 Detroiters might acknowledge that casinos won't save the city! 1 evilmrt reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 I would be call them competitive if they were contenders most years. The trend lately is they are first round fodder, with a chance they may eek into the 2nd round. Not really what I call competitive. That's what I mean. People are falsely assuming that I consider competitive to mean winning the Cup. How about winning a playoff series. Or maybe even making the Conference Finals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Probie 7 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) He did get alffie, that was a very good pickup, and he did sign weiss as well, at the time, everyone thought that was a good signing as well...bad luck made that signing not work out. He was on the verge of signing suter who was the best ufa defensemen in a long time. Deksyer was a good signing, so was glendenning. Gustafson in his first go around was a decent signing to. Then we have a few of lateral meh moves like Sammy. Its not that bad in free agency. Its not an awesome record but its not that bad. With our low draft position, we obviosuly cant draft elite talent, thats difficult, but we can draft a bunch of good players more so then other teams. It might be wise to trade a few of these prospects and our current picks and get the odd high draft pick to get that elite player(s) we need to win and compete in the future. So the formula is we get more GOOD players then most teams at the draft because of our good drafting, and because of this surplus we can use these prospects in tandem to move up and get that elite player/draft position we dont naturally get. I think the oilers and sharks are good trading partners for us. Oil could be interested in upgrading their goaltending and D men, it would help their rise if they got say howard, erricson and smith for example(switch a player and or d prospect) for say pittsburgs 1st 16th overall, plus an additional lower pick next year. We could package our two first round picks for say 8-9th overall. It would be nice to get Provorov, he fills the need for a very talented dman that we need. Our young core would be provorov, mrazek, tatar, larkin, mantha, nyquist, AA. That doesnt look that bad at all. Id say Mrazek and Provorov could become elite. The other guys are pretty darn good. I think the sharks would like a few of our prospects as well, or picks say in 2016. Vlassic could or should be a target. He fills an immediate need, and would still have a bit of life left once the kids fully take the reigns. He doesnt fit timewise into the sharks rebuild. Maybe a deal around nyquist might be to the sharks liking, hes four years younger. Get vlassic, sign petry, frolik, resign cole if healthy, how does this look next year? Tats-Dats-abby Z-Sheahan-Cole Jurco-helm-frolik miller-glendenning-ferraro Vlassic-Kronwall petry-dekyser quincey-provorov marchenko Mrazek Backup(not McCollum) I know it wont happen, its a pipedream, but it helps our team in the future and in the present as well IMO. But you would have to take some risks and be active. Edited May 1, 2015 by Probie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 I would like to see Holland be more willing to trade picks. He doesn't have to trade the whole farm team, but he needs to be more flexible and less scared of giving away some overvalued prospects. We're not going to home grow a Cup contender from low draft picks. Doesn't work that way. You need some legit scorers with talent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 I would like to see Holland be more willing to trade picks. He doesn't have to trade the whole farm team, but he needs to be more flexible and less scared of giving away some overvalued prospects. We're not going to home grow a Cup contender from low draft picks. Doesn't work that way. You need some legit scorers with talent. Jarnkrok, Backman, Janmark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 Jarnkrok, Backman, Janmark Is that the same person? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 Is that the same person? Is this how you side-step a point? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted May 1, 2015 Is this how you side-step a point? None of those guys were special. And that's how I side-step points also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
