The Price of Players: Building the team moving forward
View Single Post
03-17-2013, 01:45 PM
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Originally Posted by
Holland is stuck in the past. The only way he's modified his management philosophy in the cap era is to retain his picks and prospects. Other than that, he's clueless.
First, he needs to realize that veterans are not as valuable as they used to be. They get injured; they slow down; they're expensive. Gone are the days when players as slow as Larry Murphy or Brett Hull could still get by on skill and remain dominant. By contrast, the only guys in their late 30s who have remained "dominant" nowadays are phenomenal skaters.
Second, he needs to realize that being "loyal" is no longer a viable philosophy. You can't be nice and hand out contracts to aging veterans just because they've stuck around or put in some of their best years with the team. This is an era where goal differentials and shootout losses are the difference between making the playoffs and sitting on the sidelines. You can't forego signing or promoting more talented players just to keep on a veteran.
Third, going hand-in-hand with the above, the overripe philosophy has to go. The decision to bring in prospects should be based solely on whether or not they're going to give your team a better chance to win than the roster that you've got.
no one wants to be a Red Wing above all else anymore.
It's nice to be able to say "Hey! Look at our glorious past! Look at all of our historical banners! Look at our playoff streak!" but hockey players are not
dumb. They're just as aware as you are that any team can win any night in this league. So what does that mean?
You're going to have to overpay the occasional player.
I'm no NHL GM, but it would seem to me that the obvious "trick" here is to simply be discriminant: pass up on the Wisniewskis and Ehrhoffs when you've only lost 1 of your top 4 defenseman, but go hard after the Suters when you've lost 3 of your top 4 defenseman.
Fifth, if you're having cap issues or anticipate having cap issues, its OK to trade a roster player to alleviate the problem.
1. I'll go a step further and say that if vetrans (35+) dominant as you described, they shouldn't sniff any type of movement clauses. NTC's and NMC's should be awarded for something other than longevity.
2. Nothing more to add. Loyalty while nice in the past, could be a torpedo in today's nhl. It could be argued that if we want to reward loyalty, it could be done with a 1 year deal rather than multiple years. Still a thin argument imo.
3. Again, hammer meet nail. I mentioned this in another post. It's called asset management. It's not rocket science. The question becomes, can an old dog learn new tricks. The first few years it looked possible. Lately, I'm not sure.
4. Couldn't have said it better. We're no longer a prime destination. We need to pay superstars like superstars. The 'detroit discount' is a thing of the past. We knew it was coming, but it was made abundantly clear recently.
5. And again, we come back to asset management.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by garry1221