Passing on Michkov in top 3 is a franchise suicide move, he’s a potentially generational winger, regardless of how long we have to wait.
Taking Michkov could be franchise suicide. There is zero certainty that he could ever leave russia. Like you can ask for Fedotov. Michkov is great talent but he plays in league which isnt even top3 in Europe. He cant play international games that minus. Biggest problem is his nationality if he has any other passport he could be 1st pick and certainly 2nd. Now he could be 2nd rounder.
What's really interesting to me in these discussions is that either side never seem to want to reveal more precisely where they actually stand on the debate. I can present a simple question to an anti-tanker by asking "how great of a player would the top pick have to become in order to justify the "commitment" to tanking", or I can ask a pro-tanker "what negative consequences for the team wouldn't justify the tanking", but this is where the talking usually ends.
Never been directly asked that, but frankly I think the answer is fairly simple:
It's less "there are no silver linings" and more "they're irrelevant when discussing the current problem because the current problem, if unchecked, will eat those silver linings like yummy candy and spit out broken dreams and crushed hopes."
With this start, we're on pace for the former, and that's seemingly getting responded to with "but hey, Bedard" plus calls to fire Larsen/Kekalainen/both/either/whoever just fire somebody for something somehow. And c'mon, you know the instant the team starts improving we're going to have a chorus of howling outrage over how dare we "worsen our draft position", regardless of how stacked the top of this draft may or may not be.
I think the probability of us getting any of the folks y'all are gushing about as franchise-changing types are low enough as to not be relevant. Because there are too many teams that are tanking deliberately and others that, incredibly, are in even worse shape than we are.
It's certainly hard to move anywhere from there with premises as questionable as these. I don't think anyone knows how much a single player can affect any given team. Don't fool yourself.
I could play along in the abstract, but as soon as folks start debating details we start getting into the specific and that's when the abstractions start falling apart.
Except that’s not my position. Draft position above most
If you aren’t making the playoffs, sell everyone that is not in your long term plans. Your team should be worse, increasing your odds at getting a better player in the draft.
Selling guys like Nyquist/Voracek/Gavrikov is not equal to tanking. I do not want to sell Jenner for example. We aren’t trading away Werenski (like DeBrincat). But guys like Voracek/Nyquist who I believe are not in the long term plans, do nothing but hurt you in the long term with respect to the draft. The reason for this is, is that they “inflate” your win total. If you get rid of those guys now, your team is either worse, or better on the backs of our young players (assuming they get ice time). However it is my belief that you should not play your prospects until you are confident that are ready. If your prospects are not ready, replace those roster spots with guys like Guance, Meyer etc (low upside and not part of the long term plan) and let your top guys dominate at the AHL level.
Yes. Or people misconstrue your view.
if the team improves on the backs of Johnson, Sillinger, Chinakhov, Marchenko, Laine and Jiricek that is a good thing.
This is a rule of thumb that every modern cap era team should obey but as we realize we're not making decisions in a vacuum and begin to examine the state of the team more carefully I think we need to address questions such as:
I agree. I was exaggerating a little on purpose by suggesting you're a "tanker".
I think it depends. For instance, if I can trade Gus Nyquist for Adam Henrique right now I do it. Gavrikov at the TDL to maximize value, Voracek I would move ASAP. Honestly, he might not be tradable, that might be someone you have to move in the summer.
Over a player like Gaunce,Dunne,Meyer, (Bemstrom?) yes.
Jenner, Werenski, Gudbranson, Kuraly can mentor.
Hopefully the young guys you believe are part of the long term plans. Johnson, Sillinger, Marchenko (Bemstrom?)
That they aren’t very good, or they believe in the young nucleus of the team.
“We believe [you] will be an integral part of this team long term. You are part of the group that is going to turn this team into a contender. While you have performed well in your short time in the NHL, we believe it is better for your development this year to play meaningful games in the American Hockey League and help the Monsters pursue a Calder Cup.”
I might be overthinking this but would this kind of explanation be unsatisfactory to some of them? "Why are they doing this to us now and not earlier? Not all NHL games are meaningful? We're not bringing any less contribution for this team now than we did last year and they've told us they want us here and still we get sent down. We don't think they're being integral/consistent with their words and actions."
