Speculation: Lets assume the Wings pick 6th

rhef3

Registered User
Jul 28, 2016
435
124
Just outside St.louis
Once Feb 26th comes the wings should be sellers, mike green is the obvious name and i'm hoping we dump off anyone else we can. The wings will have 20 games remaining after the deadline, I'm just hoping we lose a significant amount of games after that, It's hard to predict where we would be in the standings, but i'm hoping we are sitting 3rd/4th from the bottom depending on how ottawa and vancouver play out the rest of the year. Let's assume we are picking 6th and the top 5 picks play out as

1st Dahlin
2nd Svech
3rd Zadina
4th Boqvist
5th Tkachuk

Is there a guy that slipped that we should jump on ? Or do you think we should trade down 2-3 spots and grab another 2nd rounder ?

because Hughes, Wahlstrom, Bouchard, Dobson, Smith, Wilde are still available at D, just curious to see if anyone else would favor trading down to grab more picks
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,698
From where we are sitting today, trading back a couple of spaces does have some appeal. I personally, however, would just take Dobson or Hughes at 6 and move on to our next pick. If Green lands us a second, first-round pick (say from Tampa) or another second-round pick, the more interesting question is whether we should try to trade back up into (or further up) the first round for a second bite at that first-round apple.
 
Jul 30, 2005
17,660
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
I'm kinda on the fence with Hughes. He's so amazingly skilled, but he just has no defensive element to his game right now. And he makes Hronek look like a big dude.

That and I sorta worry about his finishing ability—not in terms of shooting, but just in terms of executing. He looks amazing zipping around the ice, and he's fantastic at moving the puck, but when he's flying around, making plays in the offensive zone, those passes aren't on the tape as often as I would like. He's come across as a highlight reel for "wow, that was almost a great play!"

It's like on Adventure Time where the cat? dinosaur thing says "I have approximate knowledge of many things." Hughes approximately executes a lot of the time.

 
Last edited:

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Basically what Rzombo said, go with whichever defenseman they have highest on their board. I’d guess that would be Hughes or Dobson.

Only forward I’d consider would be Wahlstrom. We have multiple 2nd’s and 3rd’s already, so I’d rather keep our first rounder as high as possible.
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,767
10,309
If there was ever a year not to trade down from top 10 this is it. All we have heard is how the top end of the 2018 Draft is supposed to be one of the best in a long time, so we should take the best player left at whatever we get. Hopefully if we don't win the lottery, we get 2 or 3 is what I am hoping for, personally.

I also heavily believe we don't even have enough to trade from 2 or lower to 1, without giving up Larkin, our 1st, ++++ in this particular draft, because Dahlin is considered to be heavily ahead of everyone else. No team is trading 1st, not that it even happens in other years anyways. The price would be way to crazy and would likely backfire giving up way too many assets just for one. Now if Dahlin turns into the next Bobby Orr or Nick Lidstrom, then I would trade Larkin ++++ to get him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

cjm502

Bingo Bango!
Jun 22, 2010
1,791
992
Mid Michigan
Hughes looks so natural when he plays. His poise with and without the puck is outstanding but what impresses the most is how quickly his decision making is, he always knows exactly what he wants to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HisNoodliness

HisNoodliness

The Karate Kid and ASP Kai
Jun 29, 2014
3,652
2,022
Toronto
Yeah I'd personally just take Hughes, Dobson or Smith. If we were to make a trade, I'd rather try to trade up to 4 for Boqvist... But the prices are usually astronomical so that's probably unrealistic.

If we go with a forward it would be Wahlstrom but I don't think he's good enough to justify passing on a D. Hughes, Dobson or Smith could all be our best defenseman someday and we really need that.
 

Obe2kenobe

Registered User
Mar 23, 2014
673
148
U.P.
Basically what Rzombo said, go with whichever defenseman they have highest on their board. I’d guess that would be Hughes or Dobson.

Only forward I’d consider would be Wahlstrom. We have multiple 2nd’s and 3rd’s already, so I’d rather keep our first rounder as high as possible.

I saw Wahlstrom play a couple months ago against Lake State and was quite impressed. He definitely stood out, seems to have all the tools. For a kid under 18 playing against 20 + year olds he didn't look out of place. But man do we need help on th the blue line.
Should we go with the best available player? Or best available defenseman?
 

rhef3

Registered User
Jul 28, 2016
435
124
Just outside St.louis
I just think with the available defense that will be available at 6, trading down to 8th-9th wouldnt hurt as much, especially gaining an additional 2nd rounder. But if so many people are that high on hughes then i guess we go hughes ?
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,718
8,241
I just think with the available defense that will be available at 6, trading down to 8th-9th wouldnt hurt as much, especially gaining an additional 2nd rounder. But if so many people are that high on hughes then i guess we go hughes ?

The way things are going I bet it will be Dobson going before Hughes by the end of the year. Hughes isnt producing like crazy and Dobson keeps rising. Hughes also didnt have a very good WJC. Depending on how things keep going Bouchard may be higher as well. One thing I wont mind about the Hughes pick (if it happens) is that the wings have had time to scout him cause hes been in their backyard for a while. I just dont see the hype for him being as high as the other 2 right now and theyre both 6'2"+ right handers.
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,698
I just think with the available defense that will be available at 6, trading down to 8th-9th wouldnt hurt as much, especially gaining an additional 2nd rounder. But if so many people are that high on hughes then i guess we go hughes ?

I wouldn't adopt other people's opinions wholesale without actually watching the players. I like Hughes a lot but will admit that he comes with some risks. I also can't say that he is guaranteed to be significantly better than Smith or Dobson in the NHL.

A Philly blogger put together a draft chart once showing the relative value of draft picks by assigning each pick points. I am not sure how accurate it is, but it might give you some idea about the answer to your second question about trading up.

If we do get to a point where we are taking a forward with Zadina and Tkachuk off of the board (presumably because we think we can land a pretty good defensemen later in the first or second rounds), I very much prefer Farabee to Wahlstrom given what we have in the organization.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,739
14,707
Sweden
Do you think next year we will be playing for a cup ?
Like all 31 teams, we'll be playing for the cup next season. What does that have to with what we do on the draft floor? I'm generally not opposed to trading down, if we're 5th-6th I wouldn't hate it if we traded down to 7th-8th and got extra assets from it. But trading out of the top 10 is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oddbob

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
I wouldn't adopt other people's opinions wholesale without actually watching the players. I like Hughes a lot but will admit that he comes with some risks. I also can't say that he is guaranteed to be significantly better than Smith or Dobson in the NHL.

I think there are quite a few good options, as far as defenseman are concerned. Wouldn't be mad if it was Dobson, Hughes, Smith, or Bouchard... May even be another or two I wouldn't mind in the top 10.


If we do get to a point where we are taking a forward with Zadina and Tkachuk off of the board (presumably because we think we can land a pretty good defensemen later in the first or second rounds), I very much prefer Farabee to Wahlstrom given what we have in the organization.

Is that because Farabee is more of a playmaker, whereas Wahlstrom is more of a scorer? If so, I can understand that thinking. But Farabee is quite a bit smaller, and I do have concerns with him being able to be strong enough on the puck, and hold onto it long enough so that playmaking translates. Maybe I just am having doubts because of Nyquist. Wahlstrom is quite a bit bigger, and I feel better about his game translating to the next level. I also don't think he is "just" a scorer.
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,698
Is that because Farabee is more of a playmaker, whereas Wahlstrom is more of a scorer? If so, I can understand that thinking. But Farabee is quite a bit smaller, and I do have concerns with him being able to be strong enough on the puck, and hold onto it long enough so that playmaking translates. Maybe I just am having doubts because of Nyquist. Wahlstrom is quite a bit bigger, and I feel better about his game translating to the next level. I also don't think he is "just" a scorer.

A couple of things really. Yes, I very much like that he is more of a play-maker than Wahlstrom. Wahlstrom may be more than "just a scorer" but he is not naturally a pass-first player. The bigger thing though is that I don't see him as having less pure skill or hockey IQ than Wahlstrom (apart from maybe his shot). Most nights I think he actually has more pure skill with the puck than Wahlstrom. So as between the two I don't feel like we need to sacrifice any skill at all to take the playmaker. In my eyes the game also comes more naturally to Farabee. Nothing looks forced or contrived with him and I like the way that the puck follows him. Lastly, I will be the first to admit that I have an affinity for high-motor players.

Yes he is smaller and will take more time to develop, but he isn't exactly tiny and is a MUCH better skater than Nyquist was at the same age. He won't make a living with his board play, but that is not what you are drafting him for. If you think that a player with Farabee's skill, vision and skating will not be able to survive in the NHL because of his size, you are absolutely saying that size matters more than skill does.

Anyways, I see him as a very highly skilled player that complements what we have in our system better than Wahlstrom (who I see as being pretty redundant).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->