Ansar Khan: I reckon this is the plan...

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

We aren't paid millions of dollars and given extensive support staff to make these bad decisions, either.

Ok...? I was specifically referring to that post. We, in general, aren't better than NHL GMs. That doesn't mean that they're always right or that we don't get things right that they get wrong.

I'm not saying to blindly trust that your GM is making all the right moves. But they're also not making moves willy-nilly. You think Holland isn't aware that they have the highest cap number in the league? He hasn't traded roster players because the Wings have had specific needs that you either need to gut your team to land (#1C/#1D) or are moves for what looked to be eh upgrades or that would weaken the team more than strengthen it.

And how many UFAs did the Wings really let get away that would have netted anything worthwhile? Filppula, maybe. Hudler was a mediocre player when Detroit had him and he went on to have the one great year in Calgary. I'm trying to think of any others really...

Hossa? They wanted to sign and then Chicago came out with like $20M more in money.

 

[Heaton]

No, it just means that if 50 fans think player A is great and 50 fans think player A is medicore....50% of that total population is going to be correct whether they have any clue what they are talking about or not.

So if a player can list off 20 different reasons why a player is good (you know, like an evaluation) you would still say they have no idea how to evaluate a player?

Like, you can't evaluate why Datsyuk was a great player? Or you can't evaluate why Connor McDavid has become a great player? That doesn't make much sense. Fans can undoubtedly evaluate players accurately.

 

[Dotter]

I think we (the fans) are the greatest DRW scouts in the world. We collectively have watched every good or errant play Smith has ever made. Funny the GM's have to send their scouts to multiple games and try to get a read of where he's at. It's terrific Smith had a good weekend. I feel so bad for the team that picks him up, haha.

As Heaton said below, fans have access to media outlets and Youtube. Scouts and hockey staff have access to the same outlets... plus they get paid big salaries to watch hockey and to identify talent. Hockey is their full time job; not after work beer drinking time spent on hockey forums.

This is true, but I think trusting the majority of a GM's move is silly as well. Especially since there are more bad moves than good ones that anyone can see before and after they're made. There's a reason why so many contracts during free agency are laughed at, it's because they're terrible.

I also think it's pretty insulting for people to say that 95% have a clue about evaluating players. Hah, yeah OK. I'm pretty sure after people watch hockey for 5-10-15-20 years, have access to YouTube, other archival footage, a plethora of advanced stats that give insight into every situation and social media which spits out more stories than any time in history, lots of fans have a great idea about players. In many cases, fans have a lot of players pegged. But then you have other fans who abuse the stats and try to make Brendan Smith out to be the best defenseman the Wings have had since Lidstrom.

Definitely, but more times than not GM's end up being just as wrong about players as fans are at times. I'm sure Holland projected Smith to be better than he has been. I'm sure Holland projected Ericsson to be better than he has been. I'm sure Holland projected Abdelkader to be better than he's been after signing a big deal.

Saying fans have no idea how to evaluate players is ridiculous. Sure, they're probably wrong a lot of the time, but I'd argue some fans are right just as much as their GM is. Doesn't mean a fan is qualified to be a GM, but it does mean that fans of sports can evaluate talent.

Ericsson was drafted last, I think he's done better than expected. Even at his contract, I don't think he's horrible. He's not paid to be a top pairing dman, but coaches sure do seem to like putting him there.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

So if a player can list off 20 different reasons why a player is good (you know, like an evaluation) you would still say they have no idea how to evaluate a player?

Like, you can't evaluate why Datsyuk was a great player? Or you can't evaluate why Connor McDavid has become a great player? That doesn't make much sense. Fans can undoubtedly evaluate players accurately.

Well, no ****. You can see why an elite player is good. But a guy like Daniel Winnik or Brent Gilchrist or Dan Cleary before his knees gave out or Mikael Samuelsson.

There is more to scouting than to say "oh that guy is fast. He has soft hands."

What's his compete level?
Does he do all the little things?

When a guy like Smith passes it badly up the middle... was his winger supposed to be somewhere else or is he not seeing the ice well and is making dangerous passes because of it?

 

[Heaton]

Ericsson was drafted last, I think he's done better than expected. Even at his contract, I don't think he's horrible. He's not paid to be a top pairing dman, but coaches sure do seem to like putting him there.

Of course getting any value out of the last pick in the draft is good, but where he was selected is irrelevant when you sign him to a huge long term deal and he doesn't live up to it. Holland definitely wants Ericsson to be better, he's had a rough few seasons.

 

[Heaton]

Well, no ****. You can see why an elite player is good. But a guy like Daniel Winnik or Brent Gilchrist or Dan Cleary before his knees gave out or Mikael Samuelsson.

There is more to scouting than to say "oh that guy is fast. He has soft hands."

What's his compete level?
Does he do all the little things?

When a guy like Smith passes it badly up the middle... was his winger supposed to be somewhere else or is he not seeing the ice well and is making dangerous passes because of it?

I agree with all of this and I think that there are fans out there who can recognize these things. People fell in love with Cleary back in '06, people recognized Franzen's abilities prior to his breakout (look up norrisnick's posts back in 2005). A former poster on this board recognized Datsyuk's elite offensive AND defensive abilities back in 2003.

I'm not saying that ALL fans can evaluate EVERY player, but saying that no fans can accurate a player EVER is incorrect. I'm not even saying I'm one of them, I go to training tamp every single season, before this season I watched every game the Wings played. I watched the majority of every other NHL team. I'm on twitter, I read posts here, I read other social media. But having an aw shucks I have no idea what I'm actually looking at mentality is really selling yourself short. Do I think I could be a scout? **** no. But I still can evaluate players on a basic level and demonstrate why I think a player is good or bad. Scouting isn't a science, 10 different scouts might have 10 different opinions on the same player.

 

[19 for president]

I honestly think Holland just got gun shy. Players stopped wanting to take less to play here, so he started over bidding to keep his own players. Honestly I don't feel like he totally went off track until this past year or so. Helm & Abby are inexcusable contracts. Howard's was a very poor evaluation of Mrazek. E, Kronner, Z are bad contracts now but at the time they were signed they were ok. Kronner's was borderline great before his body just gave away. Nielson wasn't the type of player we should have went after, but isn't a terrrible contract.

Smith & Sheahan are guys that other GMs salivate over and overpay. They aren't good but someone will want them.

Howard, Kronner, Ericsson are probably not moveable.

Nielson could probably be moved, but we might have to retain a bit.

I pray that Helm or Abby get picked up in the draft.

 

[Red Stanley]

Rather see Smith traded. Maybe he'll realize his true potential on a team that can compensate for his deficiencies better.

 

[Reddwit]

I don't like to just "see what we have" in terms of a young player. Earn your way up to the national league or rot in the AHL. If you're worth bringing up, your play should make that obvious. If it isn't... work harder until it does.

Jurco got called up pretty quickly, Larkin spent all of a playoff series down there.

Also, when Smith doesn't have his head up his ass (which it is, admittedly, a lot of the time), he's a pretty damn good D. On a team where Kronwall is a corpse and Ericsson has impinged everything... having a cheap known quantity isn't a terrible idea.

We've watched Smith for several seasons now. It doesn't matter how good he is when he doesn't have his head up his ass when he has his head up his ass 80% of the time.

As for that GR alleged meritocracy, that's utter ********. March and Lashoff were further up the scale than Jensen and XO just a few months ago. Now XO is in the top 4 and Jensen a regular while the others are waiver fodder. Then there's the crock history of Nyquist, AA and even Mantha to some degree. It's a garbage, BS narrative to suggest the DRW call-up scheme functions as a meritocracy. My god.

 

[lomekian]

re: Brendan Smith - I'm extremely pleased to hear that it sounds like I was completely wrong about his perceived value around the league. I really hope we're able to get a 3rd-ish for him (and that we don't do something as braindead as extend him).



Why? What does a 36/37 year old with notorious work ethic issues add to a team that already has a fair amount of signed 'veteran leadership'? Maybe we can give Iginla a 4 year deal this year, too.

A lot more intelligence than many of our other vets. More skill than all but z. As for the work ethic issues, I don't buy them. He's never been a crash and banger or furious skater. He's an incredibly smart, very skilled slightly one-paced offensive player, who appears to be the only pedal on this roster not named Zetterberg to improve the output of every single line-mate this season.

I'd also say his play-style is infinitely more likely to age well than some of our others.

Obvs any future contract would be dependent on salary vs term, and is only really worth it for the wings if we can find a way to lose another, less productive high cap hit guy

I love that "pissing off your PPG and former MVP winger to where he wants out of town" and then salvaging ok value for him is wizardry... and trading away the husk of cap space left by your franchise C who is going to retire no matter what you do is blindly stumbling around and any idiot could do it.

Arizona could and should have had leverage out the rear on that. Sure, they didn't care about Datsyuk's 7.5M... but Detroit sure did. Arizona just hopped on the chance to get Chychrun because he was there.

Cursed Lemon is one of those posters who judges KH by entirely different standards to how anyone else is judged. On the specific trades in question, both GMs did pretty well out of bad situations, though comparisons will be judged partially on how the d-men from the 2016 draft turn out. KH was helped by chychrun's fall, but unless he proves significantly better than both Cholowski and Hronek combined, it was a big win for Detroit. There is some criticism of the trade in the context of the Nielsen signing, but not only is it too early to judge that, it is also a separate issue. Of course, had the Stamkos long-shot come off, KH would have looked like a genius, current injuries notwithstanding.

MSL got a good return (albeit with a slightly ugly contract that is now a bit of a problem, and picks that turned out to be low value) for the Lightning, but it's hard to know if better communication could have prevented it from being a necessary trade. Would Marty have lasted longer in TB than NY? Hard to say.

Given the respective situations I'd say at present that KH did slightly better given the respective situations, but it's possible Chychrun surpasses his projected ceiling or that neither Cholo or Hronek get near theirs. At present Hronek is looking incredibly impressive on a pretty poor team D, but Ryan Sproul teaches us that there is a big gap between dominating in the OHL and pulling up any trees in the NHL.

Yzerman didn't snub St. Louis. He just didn't overrule Team Canada's management group to add his own player.

And you have no idea what conversations he did or didn't have with St. Louis.

I guess the point is that no-one knows why those conversations were. Yzerman's MO suggests that perhaps he might not have sugar coated things in the way others might have, but we'll never know if MSL suddenly became a massive prima donna due to seeing his last major international opportunity pass him by, or if Yzerman and co handled it badly.

The truth presumably lies between the two as for either to be totally responsible would contradict former behaviour. I'm inclined to think the player reacted badly without too much justification, but someone in the management team (maybe stevia y, maybe not) dealt with it in the wrong way, making something that should have been a storm in a teacup a bigger split

 

[lomekian]

I see where you are coming from. Honestly I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall to hear that negotiation between those two. I took it as an indication of how bad they wanted the kid, and I mean they have all the cap space in the world, but yeah maybe they should have played some better hardball there.

I mean the biggest thing was Arizona lost out on their 2nd round pick to us. But they flipped their other 2nd for DeAngelo, who I think is worth much more than a 2nd rounder. Also they had two first's and two second's going into this last draft. So big picture wise, with everything they moved around and we moved around, might have worked out for both sides.

Agreed. Unless Chychrun bombs or neither cholo or hronek make an impact in the NhL, both teams can feel pretty happy with the trade. Both got what they wanted without having to give up much that they didn't. I suspect something was always going to work out between the two, but Chychrun's fall meant that the wings could lose that contract as almost the throw in in a not unusual draft pick trade.

I suppose an interesting question in hindsight is, what do we reckon we could get for Nielsen were he being traded?

 

[Debrincat93]

It's interesting to see Khan saying that Vanek won't be back this offseason when HSJ (and the national media) have both suggested that a reunion will be strongly considered. Khan and HSJ are usually in lockstep when it comes to predicting the Wings' future moves. I don't know who to believe on this one.

definitely not HSJ. She's a hack who doesnt do any research besides cilck others articles or asking them. Trust me, she has very little insight.

 

[lomekian]

I'd agree with this. None of us (well, 95% of us) have a clue what we're talking about when it comes to evaluating players. I admit I'm in that 95% as well.

We all still give our opinions though

True enough!

Smith is the kind of guy that in the right pairing in the right team strategy could be a very good pick up for someone. He's a pretty good puck lugger and he's pretty physical, but he needs to be alongside brains and passing ability in order to flourish. There is a reason he's looked decent with Kronner and Green fairly regularly and pretty awful with bad passers or inexperienced pros.

Not a lot of merit re-signing him now, but they are discussing a similar deal to Vanek rumours of re-signing as a UFA at a similar rate, I could live with that.

Of course, the dream scenario is that he gets moved for a 2nd (somehow!) to someone like the Penguins and it all goes badly wrong, his value plummets and we bring him back for a deal like Quincey at NJ and manage to LTIR Kronwall or Ericsson. Or he goes to Pittsburgh, looks like a world beater, gets 7 years at $4m+ and then bombs! ;-)

 

[Debrincat93]

if old man hainsey gets a 2nd and a crap AHLer, Smith should be able to get a 3rd from some desperate squad somewhere.

 

[Frk It]

In many cases, fans have a lot of players pegged. But then you have other fans who abuse the stats and try to make Brendan Smith out to be the best defenseman the Wings have had since Lidstrom.

This is an exaggeration, but the only people who believed anything close to this would be people who don't know how to apply context to analytics.

 

[njx9]

A lot more intelligence than many of our other vets. More skill than all but z. As for the work ethic issues, I don't buy them. He's never been a crash and banger or furious skater. He's an incredibly smart, very skilled slightly one-paced offensive player, who appears to be the only pedal on this roster not named Zetterberg to improve the output of every single line-mate this season.

No one's denying that he's been a plus for this team, this year, but you also can't deny he was getting scratched in Minnesota because of work ethic issues (at least, from what the team said). The same questions dogged him in Montreal. It's why the Wings only gave him a one-year deal this year (and why no one else would give him more).

I'd also say his play-style is infinitely more likely to age well than some of our others.

When you're talking about guys over 35, this is fairly meaningless. It's not arguable that forwards, after about 30, drop fairly precipitously, and for a player who's already battling injuries, it's foolhardy to bet on this year's production being even close to the norm past his 35th birthday.

Obvs any future contract would be dependent on salary vs term, and is only really worth it for the wings if we can find a way to lose another, less productive high cap hit guy

Sure, and I have no argument with another 1 year deal. But locking up another winger, with term, for 'leadership' or whatever is asinine player management. It would, however, be completely in-line with the kind of decision making that's taken the Wings from a Cup contender, to a team that sort-of-kind-of hopes another team will lose enough that it can make the playoffs, but knows it'll never get more than 3 extra home games.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

As Heaton said below, fans have access to media outlets and Youtube. Scouts and hockey staff have access to the same outlets... plus they get paid big salaries to watch hockey and to identify talent. Hockey is their full time job; not after work beer drinking time spent on hockey forums.





Ericsson was drafted last, I think he's done better than expected. Even at his contract, I don't think he's horrible. He's not paid to be a top pairing dman, but coaches sure do seem to like putting him there.

I know he's a fairly regular whipping boy but Ericsson is a success story for the Wings. They turned the dead last pick in the draft into a regular NHL defenseman. That's a win. And I can't imagine Holland had huge expectations over a defenseman who converted to the position as an 18 year old taken dead last. It was more likely "what have I got to lose?"

Kindl and Smith are the big disappointments on the blueline. Imagine how different the defense would've looked had those two panned out.

 

[Heaton]

I know he's a fairly regular whipping boy but Ericsson is a success story for the Wings. They turned the dead last pick in the draft into a regular NHL defenseman. That's a win. And I can't imagine Holland had huge expectations over a defenseman who converted to the position as an 18 year old taken dead last. It was more likely "what have I got to lose?"

Kindl and Smith are the big disappointments on the blueline. Imagine how different the defense would've looked had those two panned out.

Yeah, but people don't complain about the Wings drafting Ericsson, they complain about the lifetime contract and the poor play he's had since 2009. Ericsson being the last pick in the draft doesn't excuse his mistakes.

 

[lomekian]

Like, you can't evaluate why Datsyuk was a great player? Or you can't evaluate why Connor McDavid has become a great player? That doesn't make much sense. Fans can undoubtedly evaluate players accurately.

To be fair, that's not really scouting or detailed evaluation. Most people can spot a genius even in fields they know nothing about.

I think where real scouting comes in is ceiling and likelihood to reach that ceiling & fit of strengths and weaknesses with a team and system etc, as well as less obvious things like work ethic, character in adversity, vulnerability to specific opposition tactics etc.

As fans its very easy to say so and so is at this level or this level, but that is most based on a reflection of their current situation. The skill is in seeing how a player can do in different as yet unrealised situations.

With Smith being a case in point, paired with KFQ he looked seriously bad at times. In the playoffs with Kronner he looked like a flawed diamond - errors obvious but genuinely impactful. When he first came up and was with Lidstrom he was 0.5 PPG and looked a bona fida NHL offensive d-man, albeit for a short spell. Had he had the good fortune to be riding the Ian White, Matthieu Dandenault train alongside Lids, his dynamism would have been wonderfully showcased while much of his failings masked.

So much of our judgement is situational, which is why some trades end up so one-sided, and why some scouts are held in such high esteem, and why Scotty Bowman was so well thought of, due to his ability to recognise what needed to be added to or removed from the mix

 

[lomekian]

Of course getting any value out of the last pick in the draft is good, but where he was selected is irrelevant when you sign him to a huge long term deal and he doesn't live up to it. Holland definitely wants Ericsson to be better, he's had a rough few seasons.

Yes and no. One still has to consider what one gives up for an asset when assessing their success from an organisational perspective. E's overpaid for sure (though not by as much as some think). His wrist, hand and hip injuries have definitely limited his effectiveness.

But he is still a player that for much of his contract has been at a level that many teams have given up good picks or a roster player for. From a GM's persepctive he's cost us cap space and a 9th round pick. Had he remained injury free and continued to develop his once good passing or been signed at $2.5m he'd be an unmitigated success.

His contract is undoubtedly a problem, because he's now topped out as a #4 or good #5 guy, but it remains to be seen if his contract is relevant the next time we have a good enough core to compete. So far, his contract looks ugly but hasn't really cost us doing anything that would be making a significant difference to this team

 

[Heaton]

To be fair, that's not really scouting or detailed evaluation. Most people can spot a genius even in fields they know nothing about.

I think where real scouting comes in is ceiling and likelihood to reach that ceiling & fit of strengths and weaknesses with a team and system etc, as well as less obvious things like work ethic, character in adversity, vulnerability to specific opposition tactics etc.

Definitely, and I think at times, fans are able to spot a lot of these characteristics.

With Smith being a case in point, paired with KFQ he looked seriously bad at times. In the playoffs with Kronner he looked like a flawed diamond - errors obvious but genuinely impactful. When he first came up and was with Lidstrom he was 0.5 PPG and looked a bona fida NHL offensive d-man, albeit for a short spell. Had he had the good fortune to be riding the Ian White, Matthieu Dandenault train alongside Lids, his dynamism would have been wonderfully showcased while much of his failings masked.

Which is kinda what I'm saying. Everyone could see that Smith was terrible with Quincey, yet these professional scouts and coaches evaluated that this was a good position to put him in. People 'evaluated' from the very beginning that Smith should have been developed as an offensive defensemen since that was what he was known for when he was drafted, yet he was developed as a stay at home defenseman by Babcock. Would things have turned out differently had Babcock used him as an offensive defenseman? I don't know. But it could have.

So much of our judgement is situational, which is why some trades end up so one-sided, and why some scouts are held in such high esteem, and why Scotty Bowman was so well thought of, due to his ability to recognise what needed to be added to or removed from the mix

Very true, but that doesn't mean a fans evaluation is wrong all of the time and we have no idea what we're talking about.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Yeah, but people don't complain about the Wings drafting Ericsson, they complain about the lifetime contract and the poor play he's had since 2009. Ericsson being the last pick in the draft doesn't excuse his mistakes.

Poor play since 2009? That's a pretty good example of him being a whipping boy. He had a couple shaky seasons after he shattered his finger but has mostly been solid. Including this season. The biggest issue with Ericsson is him being regularly asked to play over his head. He's not a top pairing defenseman in spite of often getting played there.

And I have a lot less problem with his contract than I do the ones handed out to kindl and smith. Ericsson has actually been serviceable.

 

[Heaton]

Poor play since 2009? That's a pretty good example of him being a whipping boy. He had a couple shaky seasons after he shattered his finger but has mostly been solid. Including this season. The biggest issue with Ericsson is him being regularly asked to play over his head. He's not a top pairing defenseman in spite of often getting played there.

And I have a lot less problem with his contract than I do the ones handed out to kindl and smith. Ericsson has actually been serviceable.

I agree with this, but that's the only way we can evaluate his play. It's the same with DeKeyser and Kronwall. If we had a true #1 defenseman all 3 of these guys wouldn't get nearly as much flak as they do.

 

[lomekian]

I honestly think Holland just got gun shy. Players stopped wanting to take less to play here, so he started over bidding to keep his own players. Honestly I don't feel like he totally went off track until this past year or so. Helm & Abby are inexcusable contracts. Howard's was a very poor evaluation of Mrazek. E, Kronner, Z are bad contracts now but at the time they were signed they were ok. Kronner's was borderline great before his body just gave away. Nielson wasn't the type of player we should have went after, but isn't a terrrible contract.

Smith & Sheahan are guys that other GMs salivate over and overpay. They aren't good but someone will want them.

Howard, Kronner, Ericsson are probably not moveable.

Nielson could probably be moved, but we might have to retain a bit.

I pray that Helm or Abby get picked up in the draft.

Agree with all of this bar from..
1) I think Howard's contract was fine at the time - the 9 months before he signed it and the 3/5ths of the following season (before he picked up the what is now regular injury bug), he was playing at a very very high level. At the signing date he was enjoying his 3rd season out of 4 as a pro at 9.20 or better. Until his injury the following season, he was doing even better and was selected as an all star. Since then its been 2 bad years, struggling for fitness and the mental adjustment to a real challenge, but as this season showed, the talent is still there - 9.34 save % was always going to be unsustainable but with more games played he'd be topping the NHL. Long goalie contracts are always risky, but I imagine the Caps, the BJs & the Habs are all pretty happy with their commitments, and at the time of the contract, Howard's record was almost as good as any of theirs when they got paid.

2) don't think we'd have to retain to move Nielsen. Guy's a genuine 2nd line center whose game should age well.

No one's denying that he's been a plus for this team, this year, but you also can't deny he was getting scratched in Minnesota because of work ethic issues (at least, from what the team said). The same questions dogged him in Montreal. It's why the Wings only gave him a one-year deal this year (and why no one else would give him more).

When you're talking about guys over 35, this is fairly meaningless. It's not arguable that forwards, after about 30, drop fairly precipitously, and for a player who's already battling injuries, it's foolhardy to bet on this year's production being even close to the norm past his 35th birthday.

Sure, and I have no argument with another 1 year deal. But locking up another winger, with term, for 'leadership' or whatever is asinine player management. It would, however, be completely in-line with the kind of decision making that's taken the Wings from a Cup contender, to a team that sort-of-kind-of hopes another team will lose enough that it can make the playoffs, but knows it'll never get more than 3 extra home games.

Well, like I said, it all comes down to money and term. I just think the questions that you allude to in Minny and Montreal were not entirely fair.

In Montreal he got 15 points in 18 games while being +8 (then a slightly disappointing 10 in 17 in the playoffs) after his 2nd trade of the season. In Minny he lost his way a bit, but also wasn't used in a the right way in a team that seemed to misunderstand what they had. They saw him as a goalscorer, but he's racked up more assists than goals every year since 2010. Over the 2 years, 5 on 5 in Minny he was their 4th best forward, in terms of points per 60 mins. His defensive stats were middle of the pack on a roster that had a lot of defensively good forwards. Whist having a rib injury from a dirty hit for a decent % of the time. He didn't 'hustle' as much as some others, but he never has been a guy to skate around meaninglessly.

His buyout there was more the fact that he was the lowest cost buyout of the Wild's over-priced wingers at a time when they needed the money to tie up post ELC youngsters.

Yeah, but people don't complain about the Wings drafting Ericsson, they complain about the lifetime contract and the poor play he's had since 2009. Ericsson being the last pick in the draft doesn't excuse his mistakes.

Since 2009? So in your view he's been rubbish since he first made the line-up, when making peanuts? Harsh, man!

Were he taking home $1m less a year and hadn't been forced to play too high in the line-up, no-one sane would be particularly critical.

Definitely, and I think at times, fans are able to spot a lot of these characteristics.



Which is kinda what I'm saying. Everyone could see that Smith was terrible with Quincey, yet these professional scouts and coaches evaluated that this was a good position to put him in. People 'evaluated' from the very beginning that Smith should have been developed as an offensive defensemen since that was what he was known for when he was drafted, yet he was developed as a stay at home defenseman by Babcock. Would things have turned out differently had Babcock used him as an offensive defenseman? I don't know. But it could have.



Very true, but that doesn't mean a fans evaluation is wrong all of the time and we have no idea what we're talking about.

I think SOME fans are pretty good at talent evaluation. The majority find it hard to see beyond immediate cirucmstances.

Not sure the scouts had any say in our d-pairings. As we know, Babs is an excellent systemic coach who can get the most out of people more often than not, but he isn't immune to making odd judgements. I suspect with Smith, he saw there wasn't the talent to be a proper offensive d-man at the NHL level, and tried to mould him into something he liked more, but with his famous stubbornness refused to alter his plan, even when it was clear it wasn't working.

And I would never say fan evaluation is wrong all the time...that was someone else's point!

I agree with this, but that's the only way we can evaluate his play. It's the same with DeKeyser and Kronwall. If we had a true #1 defenseman all 3 of these guys wouldn't get nearly as much flak as they do.

That literally directly contradicts what you've just been saying to me! Its by far the only way we can evaluate his play. The very fact that most recognise that he's been fine as a #4 but not as a #2 suggests that we all try to evaluate his play beyond just the context of his immediate role. Of course, many chose to ignore his inappropriate elevation and injuries to lay into the guy, because, well, internet sports fans...

 

[njx9]

Well, like I said, it all comes down to money and term. I just think the questions that you allude to in Minny and Montreal were not entirely fair.

In Montreal he got 15 points in 18 games while being +8 (then a slightly disappointing 10 in 17 in the playoffs) after his 2nd trade of the season. In Minny he lost his way a bit, but also wasn't used in a the right way in a team that seemed to misunderstand what they had. They saw him as a goalscorer, but he's racked up more assists than goals every year since 2010. Over the 2 years, 5 on 5 in Minny he was their 4th best forward, in terms of points per 60 mins. His defensive stats were middle of the pack on a roster that had a lot of defensively good forwards. Whist having a rib injury from a dirty hit for a decent % of the time. He didn't 'hustle' as much as some others, but he never has been a guy to skate around meaninglessly.

His buyout there was more the fact that he was the lowest cost buyout of the Wild's over-priced wingers at a time when they needed the money to tie up post ELC youngsters.

I think if there were questions from one team, it'd be easy to disregard. When it's questions from multiple teams, at multiple points in his career, you sort of start to think there might be some fire to all that smoke.

And it becomes less easy to risk when the player is old, declining, and no longer a key piece of literally anything the team is actually doing. It'd be one thing if he were the piece putting the team over the top, but at this point, he might be the only piece that's preventing the team from being the Avalanche.

I don't see any reason to resign a guy with any amount of term whatsoever if the only difference he makes is between the worst and second or third worst record in a given year. Especially on a team that doesn't, in any way whatsoever, lack leadership, intelligence, and veteran presence.

IMO there's no team benefit to bringing Vanek back, unless it's just so we can try to sell him at next year's deadline, too.