GDT: Draft Day

[HockeyinHD]

Do you think we need depth or high end talent? Do you think we need 200 foot players or dynamic playmakers?

Is that a binary choice?

If you're saying the only two outcomes are either 200 foot players or dynamic playmakers, I'd rather the playmakers.

IMO, there are a few more exit ramps on that particular freeway. Also, there's the obvious scarcity issue with regards to dynamic playmakers.

Absent dynamic playmakers, I'd rather a bunch of 200 foot players than failed dynamic playmakers.

It seems to me like Detroit is starting to make their organizational preferences a little more explicit. They look to be building a deep two-way team. Maybe the point is they're going to try and add dynamism later, maybe it's not and they just want to build a grindy, tough team that's annoying to play against. I haven't seen enough to tell which, yet.

 

[HockeyinHD]

That's the retort? That, after WINNING BACK TO BACK CHAMPIONSHIPS with a lineup heavy on skill and light on physicality, Pittsburgh traded for a guy to add size and toughness...so that means that Detroit, who just ended their playoff streak, and has nothing in place for a core...is clearly on the right track by prioritizing size over talent ceiling?

I can see why you're confused. You didn't understand my point.

 

[Filppula]

So we're going to become a big, gritty team with character.

You need skill and speed in today's NHL. I genuinely don't think we'll be near any success for a long time. I miss the days of the drafts where we would target skill, and look for guys who might bust but would have that flashy skill set. Lucky we drafted Athanasiou when we did, we wouldn't touch a player like him these days.

 

[Red Stanley]

That was the Stars philosophy after their fall from the playoffs. Not even kidding the management used the phrase "tough to play against" to describe their goal.

Long story short the Stars didn't sniff the playoffs again until they brought in high level skill players like Seguin and Spezza.

Teams that "grind out wins" don't compete for anything but a playoff spot at best.

Are you trying to suggest that being tough to play against is a bad thing? Are you also trying to suggest that big, physical teams that like to grind the opposition - like the Bruins and Kings - can't have talent and win championships? If you want to be more like Pittsburgh, I'd hate to break it to you, but the Wings aren't sitting in Bettman's lap for championship rings.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Are you trying to suggest that being tough to play against is a bad thing? Are you also trying to suggest that big, physical teams that like to grind the opposition - like the Bruins and Kings - can't have talent and win championships? If you want to be more like Pittsburgh, I'd hate to break it to you, but the Wings aren't sitting in Bettman's lap for championship rings.

I believe what he was suggesting was that to base an entire draft around getting bigger or tougher is incredibly stupid. There's nothing wrong with being tough to play against, you just shouldn't base an entire draft around the theme. It's how teams end up passing on Fowler for McIlrath, how players like Tyler Biggs or Stefan Matteau go in the 1st round, and why someone like Griffin Reinhart gets taken over Rielly, Dumba, or Trouba.

Gritty players and bottom six players in general are some of the easiest players to replace. It's also a hell of a lot easier for someone to learn to play with grit than it is for them to learn or develop skill or hockey IQ. Grit can easily be signed out of FA for cheap, the draft should be where teams go to get the best talent based on their criteria for selection. Ideally, the top of the list is skill based things (eg: hockey IQ, skating, etc.) and grit levels are something used for separating close prospects. I don't mind if a team takes a player or two that are hard nosed players with limited upside but you need to make sure that the team already has the skilled players first.

Also, have you seen the Kings as of late? Once they lost their skilled players they've turned into a team that's very average and close to being mediocre. They won their cups based on skill being surrounded by grit, but once some of that skill left they are left relying on players playing in roles they shouldn't be expected to do.

 

[Birko19]

I believe what he was suggesting was that to base an entire draft around getting bigger or tougher is incredibly stupid. There's nothing wrong with being tough to play against, you just shouldn't base an entire draft around the theme. It's how teams end up passing on Fowler for McIlrath, how players like Tyler Biggs or Stefan Matteau go in the 1st round, and why someone like Griffin Reinhart gets taken over Rielly, Dumba, or Trouba.

Gritty players and bottom six players in general are some of the easiest players to replace. It's also a hell of a lot easier for someone to learn to play with grit than it is for them to learn or develop skill or hockey IQ. Grit can easily be signed out of FA for cheap, the draft should be where teams go to get the best talent based on their criteria for selection. Ideally, the top of the list is skill based things (eg: hockey IQ, skating, etc.) and grit levels are something used for separating close prospects. I don't mind if a team takes a player or two that are hard nosed players with limited upside but you need to make sure that the team already has the skilled players first.

Also, have you seen the Kings as of late? Once they lost their skilled players they've turned into a team that's very average and close to being mediocre. They won their cups based on skill being surrounded by grit, but once some of that skill left they are left relying on players playing in roles they shouldn't be expected to do.

The way you talk about grit, you make it sound like our team is full of it.

 

[Red Stanley]

I believe what he was suggesting was that to base an entire draft around getting bigger or tougher is incredibly stupid. There's nothing wrong with being tough to play against, you just shouldn't base an entire draft around the theme. It's how teams end up passing on Fowler for McIlrath, how players like Tyler Biggs or Stefan Matteau go in the 1st round, and why someone like Griffin Reinhart gets taken over Rielly, Dumba, or Trouba.

Gritty players and bottom six players in general are some of the easiest players to replace. It's also a hell of a lot easier for someone to learn to play with grit than it is for them to learn or develop skill or hockey IQ. Grit can easily be signed out of FA for cheap, the draft should be where teams go to get the best talent based on their criteria for selection. Ideally, the top of the list is skill based things (eg: hockey IQ, skating, etc.) and grit levels are something used for separating close prospects. I don't mind if a team takes a player or two that are hard nosed players with limited upside but you need to make sure that the team already has the skilled players first.

Also, have you seen the Kings as of late? Once they lost their skilled players they've turned into a team that's very average and close to being mediocre. They won their cups based on skill being surrounded by grit, but once some of that skill left they are left relying on players playing in roles they shouldn't be expected to do.

What makes you think these kids have no skill? What makes you think we won't concentrate on smaller, skill-centered players next draft? It's been one draft with a top 10 pick so far. It'll take a few more. Our future is far from cemented.

 

[Syckle78]

Are you trying to suggest that being tough to play against is a bad thing? Are you also trying to suggest that big, physical teams that like to grind the opposition - like the Bruins and Kings - can't have talent and win championships? If you want to be more like Pittsburgh, I'd hate to break it to you, but the Wings aren't sitting in Bettman's lap for championship rings.

I think the point is you build your team around what kind of elite talent you have. You don't build a team based on a philosophy without a foundation in place. Those teams had elite talent on defense,goal and defensive centers. They played a style that matched their personnel. They didn't reach and draft to suit a certain style.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

You aren't tough to play against if you have a bunch of big and gritty grinders and no talent. Maybe you could argue they are annoying to play against, but the team with elite talent will win out.

Not to mention that those teams never win anything.

I can't seriously believe Detroit thinks they suck because of their small euro wingers. If management actually believes that is one of the primary reasons for their garbage roster, they are dumber than i originally thought.

Detroit won't make the playoffs again until they find elite talent. You can disagree all you want, but it won't change the fact that you are wrong.

 

[jkutswings]

I can see why you're confused. You didn't understand my point.

1) Make a point.
2) Receive counter point.
3) Deny that your point was understood.
4) Never clarify your point, or otherwise follow up.
5) Profit.

Excellent discussion strategy.

 

[Pavels Dog]

What makes you think these kids have no skill? What makes you think we won't concentrate on smaller, skill-centered players next draft? It's been one draft with a top 10 pick so far. It'll take a few more. Our future is far from cemented.

People forget our best 4 d-prospects all have great upside but flaws on the physical side (Hronek/Cholo/Saarijarvi/Hicketts). Now we drafted some bigger guys, doesn't mean they don't have talents such as mobility and puck-movement and even offense (Wright talks about Kotkensalo having Saarijarvi-like offensive upside), but it definitely makes sense to not keep stacking the D pool with nothing but small and skinny boom/bust types. It's not like a kid has to be small in order to have upside either.

On the forward side, I can understand those who wanted more boom/bust, but I'm more optimistic about Svech/Mantha/AA/Larkin than a lot of people are so I feel a Rasmussen might fit in great with that group. But you're absolutely right our work is far from done. One draft won't address all needs. 2018 is a stronger draft and one where a top 10 pick might come with a more obvious choice of a player with all the desired tools. This is a work in progress and we just added a lot of depth to our pool, some of which will hopefully prove the doubters wrong.

One additional point, recent history indicates that unless you're tanking for years and years, win the draft lottery and land Crosby/Malkin/Kane-like players and get super lucky on other picks, building a team that actually has the physical upper hand is the next best thing if you want to compete. Boston, LA to some extent, Anaheim.. you need skill too, but it's not like we don't have that. It's not a bunch of John Scotts we're talking about.

 

[Syckle78]

Having a bunch of names doesn't equal depth. Having a bunch of good prospects equals depth. This reminds me of a few years ago when Holland​ was hoarding a bunch of mediocre bottom 6 forwards and people were construing that as having depth. Friggin drove me nuts.

 

[Red Stanley]

You aren't tough to play against if you have a bunch of big and gritty grinders and no talent. Maybe you could argue they are annoying to play against, but the team with elite talent will win out.

Not to mention that those teams never win anything.

I can't seriously believe Detroit thinks they suck because of their small euro wingers. If management actually believes that is one of the primary reasons for their garbage roster, they are dumber than i originally thought.

Detroit won't make the playoffs again until they find elite talent. You can disagree all you want, but it won't change the fact that you are wrong.

Big teams aren't precluded from having talent. Our small wingers would benefit from bigger bodies creating space for them. Detroit needs lots of talent and they have more than just one draft to get it. What facts was I wrong about?

 

[Red Stanley]

I think the point is you build your team around what kind of elite talent you have. You don't build a team based on a philosophy without a foundation in place. Those teams had elite talent on defense,goal and defensive centers. They played a style that matched their personnel. They didn't reach and draft to suit a certain style.

Do we not have foundation pieces already? Did we miss a foundation piece by drafting Rasmussen? If it's no to both, should we not draft anyone unless we find a foundational piece first? I remember people *****ing we had no clear plan for the rebuild. Now we see glimpses of one and people ***** because it's not the plan that involves drafting generational talent at #9 in a so-so draft year.

 

[Leronziia]

There will be opportunities to draft top 5 in the coming years, not to worry.

Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later, so that the core years of Larkin, Mantha, AA, Svech, etc. aren't spent being a bubble team.

 

[GoAwayDanCleary]

Can't believe we spent our most valuable draft in 20 years purely on size. What a disappointment. Our management is stuck in the olden days.

 

[GoAwayDanCleary]

Most boring team in the league with the most boring draft.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Can't believe we spent our most valuable draft in 20 years purely on size. What a disappointment. Our management is stuck in the olden days.

According to Tyler Wright, it was more of a lucky coincidence most of the guys they liked also had good size. But who cares about things like mobililty, smarts and puck-moving ability unless it comes in the form of an undersized player, right?

 

[jolly roger]

There will be opportunities to draft top 5 in the coming years, not to worry.

Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later, so that the core years of Larkin, Mantha, AA, Svech, etc. aren't spent being a bubble team.

Holland is obviously looking to remake the team in his image by trading AA. The recent stories about AA being the price for a defenseman were only published because Holland gave his blessing. Imagine Larkin skating in circles on the perimeter with Mantha standing alone in front of the net. That's the show Holland and Blabhill are likely bringing to the NewJoe. Yuk.

 

[ScottyBowman]

According to Tyler Wright, it was more of a lucky coincidence most of the guys they liked also had good size. But who cares about things like mobililty, smarts and puck-moving ability unless it comes in the form of an undersized player, right?

I've seen how effective Nyquist was in the playoffs. No thank you. But then again, we might not make the playoffs for 10 years haha.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

* Talks about obviously prioritizing character and size this draft.

* Rasmussen (C) - Thinks he hits the top of the charts for character. Mentions being captain for Tri City at 18 is "unheard of". Good skater, size/wingspan/reach, if he's not producing offensively he's still hard to play against. .

I don't pretend to know a low about prospects but everything I've read about the draft points to his skating as his biggest weakness. And that he only scored 19 even strength points last season. He sounds like a giant PP specialist. Most outlets think this was a bad pick by the Wings but prospects are such a crapshoot hopefully they're wrong.

 

[Henkka]

It will be interesting to see Mantha sniping shots and this guy screening them. Will be a deadly duo.

I was worrying about Mantha being used as a future net-front presence because of his size and reach. But now, putting Rasmussen there and let Mantha be the sniper and most skilled future forward we have, it matches so much better together.

 

[Marky9er]

I don't pretend to know a low about prospects but everything I've read about the draft points to his skating as his biggest weakness.

Did you read about this?

Alex Formenton of the London Knights, ranked 24th by NHL Central Scouting in their Midterm Rankings, finished atop the overall standings in the on-ice portion of the tests which included forward and backward sprints, reaction, weave agility, and transition agility each performed with and without the puck. Defenceman Antoine Crete-Belzile of the Blainville-Boisbriand Armada (ranked 66th by NHL CS) finished second in on-ice tests, followed by fellow rearguard Markus Phillips of the Owen Sound Attack (ranked 62nd by NHL CS) in third position, forward Nico Hischier of the Halifax Mooseheads (ranked 2nd by NHL CS) in fourth, and Michael Rasmussen of the Tri-City Americans (ranked 6th by NHL CS) finished fifth in the skating drills.

 

[Squirrel in the Hole]

I don't pretend to know a low about prospects but everything I've read about the draft points to his skating as his biggest weakness. And that he only scored 19 even strength points last season. He sounds like a giant PP specialist. Most outlets think this was a bad pick by the Wings but prospects are such a crapshoot hopefully they're wrong.

I'm really ignorant when it comes to Rasmussen, but in theory, I don't mind the idea of a big guy, net-front presence, Homer replacement. We really haven't had that (Abdelkader's a$$ really doesn't count). You need a blend of players and with Rasmussen, Larkin, Mantha and AA, we have a nice blend of size and speed.

 

[DatsDeking]

I've been absent for some time, but just caught up with the draft. Here are my quick thoughts:

Initially, I was surpised we didn't take a D round 1. I thought we had some good options there. Lili going to TOR mainly hurts because it is TOR and not because of the player.

I like the pieces as a collection, not necessarily as individuals. I do think we need a bit more skill up front, but if last year's draft pans out we might have some servicable D offense.

Looking forward to seeing Svech, G. Smith, Lil Bert, and Rassmussen playing on the same team. Those guys with Mantha, Larkin, and Tats...I like that combo. Just give that some PMD, and it looks nice on paper.