Prospect Info: At 9th Overall the Detroit Red Wings Select Michael Rasmussen

[Dotter]

Franzen was drafted in 2004. Howard was drafted in 2003.

I'm talking about 2007-2017.

Really, this discussion is making my point for me; in order to find a player who could meet my description, you have to go back to 2004.

And Jim Nill left in 2013 and the new scouting is too new to evaluate. 10 years from our previous scouting is 2003. But you say we can't use that since it doesn't fit your criteria. I'm going to say Tyler Bertuzzi then since he's proving to look exactly like a core player. I'm sure you;re going to come back with "sample size too small" or something like that. Which is exactly why you use this criteria... to fit in your most absolute favor.

 

[Claypool]

That's up to you, but I think it's a player you wouldn't trade at the deadline because you're trying to build around them. You'd sell off the other pieces, but not that guy.

Larkin is a core player. Tatar and Nyquist are not.

Well, through their first few seasons when the team was still competitive I wouldn't have traded Nyquist, Tatar or Mrazek. I currently wouldn't trade Athanasiou and Bertuzzi.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

And Jim Nill left in 2013 and the new scouting is too new to evaluate. 10 years from our previous scouting is 2003. But you say we can't use that since it doesn't fit your criteria. I'm going to say Tyler Bertuzzi then since he's proving to look exactly like a core player. I'm sure you;re going to come back with "sample size too small" or something like that. Which is exactly why you use this criteria... to fit in your most absolute favor.

I don't think "looking like" is a very good measure to use, because we can't predict what's going to happen with that guy's career. But obviously we can point to players who are doing it right now, or have in the past.

If it makes you happier, I could extend the window to 2005 and on. It wouldn't change anything. The Wings have done a poor job at getting anything other than complementary level talent outside of the 1st.

 

[Dotter]

I don't think "looking like" is a very good measure to use, because we can't predict what's going to happen with that guy's career. But obviously we can point to players who are doing it right now, or have in the past.

If it makes you happier, I could extend the window to 2005 and on. It wouldn't change anything. The Wings have done a poor job at getting anything other than complementary level talent outside of the 1st.

You said exactly what I knew you'd say. Thanks for that.

I propose we wait 5 years and see how our current scouts are doing instead of going back to year X to prove a point when that scouting director is gone, and good riddance. And Hakan Andersson has been collecting a hefty paycheck for doing virtually nothing. I am happy what the scouting staff has done the past 3 years -- but I'd like to see better results coming from Hakan Andersson. Maybe they should look into replacing him.

 

[lomekian]

Why is always the same people on the side of management?

I'm pretty agnostic on the trade that Holland made with the Datsyuk deal.
Thought it was a good deal, but i thought Cholo was not a good pick and Hronek was.

I'm also not sold that Chychrun is a god of sort, either -- even if he has, by far, the best tool box of Hronek, Cholo and himself.

But whatever. It's so weird that the same people who defend the company line on every damn issue are once again doing it here.
Or maybe it's not.

Maybe this just who humans organize themselves - into two camps.

Pot, Kettle?

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

You said exactly what I knew you'd say. Thanks for that.

I propose we wait 5 years and see how our current scouts are doing instead of going back to year X to prove a point when that scouting director is gone, and good riddance. And Hakan Andersson has been collecting a hefty paycheck for doing virtually nothing. I am happy what the scouting staff has done the past 3 years -- but I'd like to see better results coming from Hakan Andersson. Maybe they should look into replacing him.

But, again, I think you're making my point for me. I find fault with the individual scouts, not so much their bosses (and the latter has seen a lot of turnover, but not so much the former). I agree with you on Hakan. I just think that should apply to more scouts. Either management doesn't listen to them or they're failing to see good players. In either case, it's time for somebody who works better in that role.

 

[lomekian]

But, again, I think you're making my point for me. I find fault with the individual scouts, not so much their bosses (and the latter has seen a lot of turnover, but not so much the former). I agree with you on Hakan. I just think that should apply to more scouts. Either management doesn't listen to them or they're failing to see good players. In either case, it's time for somebody who works better in that role.

But equally you're making his point. Nill and the scouts he took with him appear to have under-achieved post 04 ish. From what we;ve seen of the new regime they seem to be doing better with picks in rounds 1-3, though tis too early to say in all honesty. The key thing is the people in charge of the draft for the majority of the timescale you point to HAVE moved on. Too early to say, but early indications suggest their replacements have done a little better.

 

[newfy]

The last decade. Nothing. How much rope do they get?

This will be this scouting departments under Wrights 5th draft I believe. Not enough time to expect a bunch of late round gems to have panned out because those guys take longer. He does have a few good picks in Larkin, Mantha and Bertuzzi already but now is the time a lot of his guys are starting to get to the league so we'll see how they start doing.

I think so far they have been solid getting the guys they have where they did. I also think Hronek, Cholowski and Rasmussen will say a lot about them in the next 2-3 years as well. Could be good could be bad

 

[Redder Winger]

If what I am reading about how the #9 pick went down last year is correct, how they seemed very high on Necas and there were reports that they may even have taken him to lunch? It seemed like a sure lock they were taking Necas, right? Maybe they had no expectations of RAS even being on the board when they picked. And perhaps when they saw Rasmuessen on the board, they did backflips and immediately knew who they were picking.

I knew very little of Necas or Vilardi before draft day. But after draft how many on this board complained Kenny Holland didn't pick 'their' guy, I took notice of the other two.

That's great. But to be fair, if you don't know anything about guys expected to go in the top 5 and top 12 of the draft, sometimes it shows.

I watched Vilardi and thought "how unimpressive". He was basically a non-factor. I couldn't see anything watching him play live what the hype was all about. During that same span, I watch RAS take over games and single-handedly put on a show on a more consistent basis.

What came did you watch him play live where he wasn't impressive?

I find the Necas/Vilardi vs RAS discussions interesting because I see nothing in their respective game that overwhelms me enough to say Detroit made the wrong decision. I can't say bad things about Necas and Vilardi, but Vilardi's skating is very subpar. And we've learned our lesson on drafting skilled players hoping they'd advance in the skating department, then never do.... and bust.

Vilardi's skating is fine.

If there was a re-draft today I would take RAS again over Necas and Vilardi without any hesitation. I think he's going to have the best and most impactful NHL career out of the other two.

Well duh.
He's a Red WIng. He's the pro-Holland party answer.

Take your opinion outside the Red Wings board and you'll get hammered.

 

[Dotter]

That's great. But to be fair, if you don't know anything about guys expected to go in the top 5 and top 12 of the draft, sometimes it shows.

[...]

Take your opinion outside the Red Wings board and you'll get hammered.

I'm sure I know the basic arm-chair amount as 98% of this entire forum, which is 100% less than pro-scouts that get paid to follow the players.

[...]

See above. Taking 'others' opinion will be about as useful as a plunger is on the moon. I put little stock in stat watching.

 

[kliq]

What came did you watch him play live where he wasn't impressive?

I know you were asking Dotter, but when I went to watch the Spits play in the memorial cup last year, he really didn't impress me. Specifically the game I am talking about was the game against St. John. I thought the Jeremy Bracco was the most impressive player on the ice, followed by Sergachev.

With that being said, I would have chosen him over Ras in the draft.

 

[Redder Winger]

I'm sure I know the basic arm-chair amount as 98% of this entire forum, which is 100% less than pro-scouts that get paid to follow the players.

[...]

See above. Taking 'others' opinion will be about as useful as a plunger is on the moon. I put little stock in stat watching.

Homer opinions fly on team boards.
Go to the prospects board.
Ask questions. You're not going to get many guys advocating for Rasmussen over Vilardi.

Read prospect rankings by prospect writers.
Not many have Rasmussen over Vilardi.

But I get it. You never knew anything about Vilardi or Necas. Or Rasmussen.
Then your team drafted Rasmussen and you got pissed because everyone shitcanned the decision. So you defended your team.
For some people, that's what being a fan is all about. Throwing reason to the side and supporting the team.

 

[Redder Winger]

I know you were asking Dotter, but when I went to watch the Spits play in the memorial cup last year, he really didn't impress me. Specifically the game I am talking about was the game against St. John. I thought the Jeremy Bracco was the most impressive player on the ice, followed by Sergachev.

With that being said, I would have chosen him over Ras in the draft.

Really?
Because I didn't like Vilardi until the Memorial Cup.

I was big on Glass or Pettersson and Robert Thomas and Necas and Kostin and Liljegren (mostly out of need and I thought the scouts were too hard on a kid who had mono and never got back on track).
Those were the guys I thought might be available.

I hadn't seen Vilardi and I read the scouting reports, some of which criticized his skating.

Then I watched the Memorial Cup and he was the best player on the ice nearly every time he set foot on the ice. I paid a lot of attention to his skating, since it was the supposed bugaboo, and he'd hawk Debrincat on the backcheck - and Debrincat is an undersized guy who is known for speed.

I was sold. Kid made a believer out of me during the Memorial Cup.

He's going to be top liner in the NHL.
You're looking at an Auston Matthews lite, IMO.
Or maybe someone who plays a lot like Eric Staal plays.

 

[kliq]

Really?
Because I didn't like Vilardi until the Memorial Cup.

I was big on Glass or Pettersson and Robert Thomas and Necas and Kostin and Liljegren (mostly out of need and I thought the scouts were too hard on a kid who had mono and never got back on track).
Those were the guys I thought might be available.

I hadn't seen Vilardi and I read the scouting reports, some of which criticized his skating.

Then I watched the Memorial Cup and he was the best player on the ice nearly every time he set foot on the ice. I paid a lot of attention to his skating, since it was the supposed bugaboo, and he'd hawk Debrincat on the backcheck - and Debrincat is an undersized guy who is known for speed.

I was sold. Kid made a believer out of me during the Memorial Cup.

He's going to be top liner in the NHL.
You're looking at an Auston Matthews lite, IMO.
Or maybe someone who plays a lot like Eric Staal plays.

At the time of the draft I was also hoping for Liljegren for pretty much the exact same reasons you just stated or Vilardi and was also disappointed that we got Ras.
To be clear though, when I say Vilardi didn't impress me, I am just talking the one game against St. John, not the entire tournament.

 

[Dotter]

Homer opinions fly on team boards.
Go to the prospects board.
Ask questions. You're not going to get many guys advocating for Rasmussen over Vilardi.

Read prospect rankings by prospect writers.
Not many have Rasmussen over Vilardi.

But I get it. You never knew anything about Vilardi or Necas. Or Rasmussen.
Then your team drafted Rasmussen and you got pissed because everyone ****canned the decision. So you defended your team.
For some people, that's what being a fan is all about. Throwing reason to the side and supporting the team.

Why should I care what other fans opinions are on a pair of young hockey player they probably have seen as much or less than me? And if Necas is so damn good, why did he fall 12th? I mean surely some of the above teams have professional scouts that watched him play and chose to pass on him.

But because some random hockey fans on a generic public message forum says so, I am suppose to bet the farm him being the superior player that is sure-fire, without a doubt, is going to go on to have the most dominant NHL career?

Lets revisit this in 5 years.

 

[Redder Winger]

Why should I care what other fans opinions are on a pair of young hockey player they probably have seen as much or less than me? And if Necas is so damn good, why did he fall 12th? I mean surely some of the above teams have professional scouts that watched him play and chose to pass on him.

But because some random hockey fans on a generic public message forum says so, I am suppose to bet the farm him being the superior player that is sure-fire, without a doubt, is going to go on to have the most dominant NHL career?

Lets revisit this in 5 years.

We will revisit in 5 years. And 4 years. And 3 years. and 2 years. And 1 year. And 1 month. And 1 week.
What the f*** else are we going to do?

 

[Dotter]

We will revisit in 5 years. And 4 years. And 3 years. and 2 years. And 1 year. And 1 month. And 1 week.
What the **** else are we going to do?

Fun! Just like we did back in the day with Abdelkader vs Latendresse. Good times!

The guy I predicted to be the right selection is still playing hockey in the NHL =P

The ones who I argued with through thick-and-thin no longer post here (or have different usernames).

 

[Nut Upstrom]

We will revisit in 5 years. And 4 years. And 3 years. and 2 years. And 1 year. And 1 month. And 1 week.
What the **** else are we going to do?

...and 6 days. and 5 days. and 4 days. and 3 days. and 2 days. and 1 day. and in 24 hours. and in 23 hours. and in 22 hours. and in 21 hours. and in 20 hours.etc... etc...
At a certain point you're not adding to a discussion you're simply trolling. Updating Vilardi's stats every time the name Rasmussen comes up is really just beating a dead horse.

 

[Redder Winger]

...and 6 days. and 5 days. and 4 days. and 3 days. and 2 days. and 1 day. and in 24 hours. and in 23 hours. and in 22 hours. and in 21 hours. and in 20 hours.etc... etc...
At a certain point you're not adding to a discussion you're simply trolling. Updating Vilardi's stats every time the name Rasmussen comes up is really just beating a dead horse.

Right.
That's what I do. I update Vilardi's stats every game.

If you're going to accuse people of trolling, you should be a little more precise with your accusation.
Because hyperbole is a well-known tool of the troll. And you don't want to appear a hypocrite.

The Vilardi vs Rasmussen thing still stings.
As the sting wears off, you'll see less of it.
Same with the Necas fans. Or Liljegren fans. Etc

But, like we see with Kuznetsov and Sheahan, or Hossa vs Franzen, these things will come up over and over again. And it will irritate some folks. Especially those who got it wrong.

 

[Henkka]

Time to put some people on ignore list.

Easier.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Define support.
Rasmussen and Cholo are Red Wings property.
I want them to be as good as they can be.
Is that support?

But can I also have the ability use my head and assess the information I have? If that leads me to disagree with those picks, I guess it's not support.

Talking more about the way a guy like Cholowski is deemed a terrible pick from day 1 and people were saying he would take 5 years to reach the NHL and every point Chychrun scored in his rookie season the trade was brought up. Sure maybe people still wanted Cholo to do good, but if there's zero faith and patience shown what does it matter? Rasmussen has had a very good season and people have been pretty quiet about it, then suddenly he has a 3 game pointless streak while Vilardi is hot and it becomes a hot topic again. I don't read that as support at all.

I'm tired of seeing people fail upward in this organization. They've been below average for years now, and yet they still act like they deserve the benefit of a doubt.

The criterion is simple: in the last 10 years, draft 1 core player from a round other than the 1st. Plenty of teams meet that standard. Detroit does not.

You can remove the last 5 years or so considering late rounder take longer to actually develop. Before that, Wings were drafting from the worst position in the league. That doesn't just apply to the 1st round. It means our 2nd rounders were almost 3rd rounders, our 3rd rounders as good as other team's 4th rounders etc etc.
On top of that, we weren't selling assets so we rarely/never had extra picks.

Taking context into consideration our drafting was average at worst overall. Bad-to-terrible on the defensive side for too long, but easily above average on the forward side and solid on goalies. More time is needed to evaluate the new scouting staff but they also are starting to have better odds with higher draft position and extra picks. How many late round core players are Pittsburgh and Chicago churning out lately? Yeah Debrincat and Guentzel are decent.. but you don't build a team around them.

You can always find exceptions, but you and I both know that the vast majority of top picks are pretty predictable in how they turn out within a couple years.

Hell, for top top picks, you can know before they're even drafted. No one needed to see Matthews or Eichel in an NHL game first to know they'd be stars.

I'm in agreement, but it's still a couple of years.

For some people, that's what being a fan is all about. Throwing reason to the side and supporting the team.

And for others, if 9 out of 10 "experts" say something it has to be true. And when it comes to things that are possible to scientifically conclude with some degree of certainty I would generally agree. But with prospect evaluations? Yeah I don't know. The amount of people that actually watch enough hockey to truly judge a few hundred prospects against eachother is a low, low number. So Rasmussen may not be a popular pick, he's not a 5'10'' european with a snazzy name who tore up the WJCs, but there are reasons he was a #9 pick and just by watching him in preseason I can tell there was more to that decision than "Red Wings scouting staff are mentally unstable".

 

[SirloinUB]

But, like we see with Kuznetsov and Sheahan, or Hossa vs Franzen, these things will come up over and over again. And it will irritate some folks. Especially those who got it wrong.

I wanted Kuznetsov and this kind of shit irritates me. I just get sick of seeing the same circular conversations about stuff that can't be changed and really doesn't matter any more.

 

[Redder Winger]

I wanted Kuznetsov and this kind of **** irritates me. You've mad just get sick of seeing the same circular conversations about stuff that can't be changed and really doesn't matter any more.

Oh well.
Welcome to life. Where you can't control the things people think and say.

 

[Frk It]

nvm... off topic enough in this one.

 

[Dotter]

Yup, I wanted Kuz, too. I know why Detroit and all the other teams wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole. He was the perfect situation for Washington, and even they took a gamble... which ultimately paid off (despite the fact they haven't won a cup).