View Single Post
05-11-2011, 04:31 AM
Registered User
Ola's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,785
vCash: 500
Schoeney mentions Detroit Red Wings as a example of a successful team that didn't go through the last overall in the NHL for 5 straight years approch.

I want to comment that a bit. Everyone mentions Detroit Red Wings as a example, but there are still no "copy cats". Why? That's simple, "they had Yzerman and drafted Feds, Lidas, Z, Dats and co with late round picks, if you can do that, fine but its not something that you can copy".

You know, to a extent, fair enough.

But I do not think its that easy. To a big extent too, they are avoiding the copy cat's by making them believe that kind of like the hen came before the egg, while in fact they came hand in hand so to speak. Because they are doing a lot of things diffrent then other org's.

1. They are giving their kids more time then anyone else. Often not touching them before 3-4 years after they have been drafted.

2. They never bring up a kid before he is ready. Some talk about "giving a kid a shot", like the you never know-approch. Like you do now if a kid is ready or not. Its not the only way, you do not have to keep them in HFD/Europe untill they are ready, you can bring them up, tell everyone "look at our kids", and they can develop in the NHL too. But it's not Detroit's approch.

3. They keep their team intact to as big extent as possible. They do the absolute opposite thing of like Slats nickle & dime-approch were you can follow like a 3rd round pick from 2005 and see how that pick have been traded 5-6 times and how like Dom Moore after x amount of moves becomes Z player. I saw someone mention how a goalie we talked about aquiring as a back up/HFD guy were too old, since he was "28 y/o". I blew a fuse. Its 2011. If a player have 5 years left in his prime, he will be with us untill the end of the 2017 season. In the world we are living with, that's enough. Who keep their backups around longer then that? And never ever dump a vet who is good enough, but can be "replaced" with a kid who probably can do the same job. Dump the vet when you have a kid who like is on another planet then him. Do not bring in a ton of vets from the outside. But if you have a player that works, in like a 6th D role, you do not bring up a kid into that position because the kid possibly could grow and become a top 2 D. Play the kid when he is ready to be a top 4 D then.

I know that Pavel Datsyuk as like a 19/20 y/o were offered by a desperate agent to Malmö Red Hawks in Sweden. They took a short look at him and saw a weak, soft, small, not-very-effective "classic Russian", and say nope, we don't think so and basically laughed in the Agent's face. They were a team desperate to add players. You know, I wouldn't be suprised if in a parallel universe, if drafted by any other team, Pavel Datsyuk, maybe the best player in the game per today, wouldn't even have made it to the NHL.

What's my point? I think you can do a lot at the management level in the NHL. So many are going about business like they always have. You have the "Cherry's" and you have a lot of "truths".

Last edited by Ola: 05-11-2011 at 04:38 AM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote