Speculation: The Wings Pick at 4th: The Runner-Up
- Thread starter Winger98
- Start date
ProNman Is reporting that the two names he hears connected to Detroit the most are Perfetti and Askarov
Henkka
Registered User
drw02
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2013
- 5,736
- 973
Dunno how much stock to put into rumors about Wings draft, few people had any idea they were going with Seider last year. Almost feels like the more you hear about them liking someone the less likely it is they take them. Be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Hoping for Raymond, think he has the most upside of who's available but I can live with pretty much anyone in that 4-10 range, will trust the new scouting staff to get it right. I do hope they see Perfetti as a C if they're taking him at 4 tho, I don't think Ras is an NHL center and this team does not need anymore LH shot wingers
Hoping for Raymond, think he has the most upside of who's available but I can live with pretty much anyone in that 4-10 range, will trust the new scouting staff to get it right. I do hope they see Perfetti as a C if they're taking him at 4 tho, I don't think Ras is an NHL center and this team does not need anymore LH shot wingers
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
He also mentioned possibly Sanderson or Raymond as well, Perfetti is just to logical and Yzerman isn't a logical GM he goes off the board to much.
lilidk
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2008
- 9,867
- 3,595
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Still going with Marco Rossi my 2nd is Cole Perfetti
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,047
- 8,794
I voted Perfetti for my first choice. I've come to think that I'd be fine with either him or Raymond at #4, so if Raymond is the bride, then Perfetti is the bridesmaid.
HisNoodliness
The Karate Kid and ASP Kai
Yzerman is extremely watertight with leaks, but I'm not sure that he's made our front office as leak-tight as he did in Tampa. The Seider pick was leaked last year. I think Draper is leaky, we knew he liked Dach and we know that he likes Perfetti. We are pretty confident that Yzerman likes Stutzle.
I like Perfetti but he wouldn't be my pick at 4... I think it's about time I start trying to convince myself that he should be haha
Killerjas
Registered User
ArmChairGM89
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2019
- 1,552
- 1,034
Between Perfetti and drysdale. Went with drysdale. If they can see Perfetti having success at center he goes up to #1 on my list. But as it stands he’s third.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Hakan Andersson does, He's been heavily scouting him here as of late. Same with Alexander Holtz.
newfy
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2010
- 14,771
- 8,328
Scouting him a lot as of late doesnt really mean anything. Hes projected around the wings pick and theres no real other meaningful hockey going on. Hes obviously going to be watching him a lot
HisNoodliness
The Karate Kid and ASP Kai
Here are my thoughts on Perfetti:
He reminds me most of modern Kucherov (whom I view as primarily a passer now vs a sniper when he entered the league). Firstly Perfetti has a complete offensive toolkit. I think his most impressive offensive quality is his knowledge of each of his teammate's and each defender's position at all times in the O-zone. His ability to pull a defender to him and then thread a pass across the middle into the slot or the opposite wing for a one timer is extremely high quality. It's very reminiscent for me to Kuch finding Point in the slot or Stamkos at the other wall on the Tampa PP. His passes are also extremely accurate, always onto the stick and rarely picked off even when it's under a sliding defender or through someone pressuring him. When his team turns it over, Perfetti is really good at reading the breakout pass and picking it off.
His ability to find teammates is heavily predicated on his stick handling ability. He loves to turn away from his check to gain a bit of space, then turn back while toe dragging around or beating the triangle through the defender. This lets him buy time to find a teammate and pushes the defense back so that he has the space he needs. His hands are also great for beating defenders off the rush to get a break and the goalie to bury chances in close or on breakaways.
His shot is also high quality. He likes to float into the slot and release an accurate wrister or set up on the half wall to bury a one timer. I haven't seen him be effective from distance so I think he lacks power, but his placement is great. He also has a fairly deceptive release IMO, pulling the puck into his body to change the angle. In combination with his hands and passing ability it makes him a very complete offensive threat.
My main criticism of Perfetti is his intensity. He gets bulled over a lot and doesn't finish his checks. If he sees a big hit coming he often turns away even if it means surrendering possession- making a rushed pass or letting his opponent win a puck in the corner. He sneaks into the slot, but doesn't battle to stay there.
I think this makes his skating look worse than it is. Certainly his stride looks sluggish to me and he isn't a burner, but his pivots and agility are great. He often ends up trailing the play though. Some of this is his lack of top end speed, some of this is his desire to get lost as a trailer, but I think a lot of it too is his lack of intensity to burn his way up and down the ice.
It also makes his physicality look worse than it is. I've seen him fend off checks well, use his body well to protect the puck. He's just too reluctant to really battle it out for the puck. He does a great job as the third man into a scrum, reaching in and pulling the puck away with his hands, but doesn't do as well as the guy actively engaging his opponent.
Ultimately I like Perfetti a lot. I think he'd be a great partner for Zadina and they'd put up a lot of points together. Furthermore I think he has sky high potential and would improve s lot with the right coaching. If he cleans up his stride mechanics and builds his lower body, I think his skating can get a lot better. If he puts on some weight, I think he'll stand up to physicality a lot better and be a nightmare to strip the puck from. If he gets proper coaching on how to better balance trailing the play and more aggressively pressure defenders or push the pace, I think he'll be more involved in the play. All of his flaws are very addressable, but you never know if it will actually happen. Either way his strengths are tremendous. He can shoot, pass and stick handle as well as anyone in the draft. He makes very creative plays and finds holes in the defense very well.
He reminds me most of modern Kucherov (whom I view as primarily a passer now vs a sniper when he entered the league). Firstly Perfetti has a complete offensive toolkit. I think his most impressive offensive quality is his knowledge of each of his teammate's and each defender's position at all times in the O-zone. His ability to pull a defender to him and then thread a pass across the middle into the slot or the opposite wing for a one timer is extremely high quality. It's very reminiscent for me to Kuch finding Point in the slot or Stamkos at the other wall on the Tampa PP. His passes are also extremely accurate, always onto the stick and rarely picked off even when it's under a sliding defender or through someone pressuring him. When his team turns it over, Perfetti is really good at reading the breakout pass and picking it off.
His ability to find teammates is heavily predicated on his stick handling ability. He loves to turn away from his check to gain a bit of space, then turn back while toe dragging around or beating the triangle through the defender. This lets him buy time to find a teammate and pushes the defense back so that he has the space he needs. His hands are also great for beating defenders off the rush to get a break and the goalie to bury chances in close or on breakaways.
His shot is also high quality. He likes to float into the slot and release an accurate wrister or set up on the half wall to bury a one timer. I haven't seen him be effective from distance so I think he lacks power, but his placement is great. He also has a fairly deceptive release IMO, pulling the puck into his body to change the angle. In combination with his hands and passing ability it makes him a very complete offensive threat.
My main criticism of Perfetti is his intensity. He gets bulled over a lot and doesn't finish his checks. If he sees a big hit coming he often turns away even if it means surrendering possession- making a rushed pass or letting his opponent win a puck in the corner. He sneaks into the slot, but doesn't battle to stay there.
I think this makes his skating look worse than it is. Certainly his stride looks sluggish to me and he isn't a burner, but his pivots and agility are great. He often ends up trailing the play though. Some of this is his lack of top end speed, some of this is his desire to get lost as a trailer, but I think a lot of it too is his lack of intensity to burn his way up and down the ice.
It also makes his physicality look worse than it is. I've seen him fend off checks well, use his body well to protect the puck. He's just too reluctant to really battle it out for the puck. He does a great job as the third man into a scrum, reaching in and pulling the puck away with his hands, but doesn't do as well as the guy actively engaging his opponent.
Ultimately I like Perfetti a lot. I think he'd be a great partner for Zadina and they'd put up a lot of points together. Furthermore I think he has sky high potential and would improve s lot with the right coaching. If he cleans up his stride mechanics and builds his lower body, I think his skating can get a lot better. If he puts on some weight, I think he'll stand up to physicality a lot better and be a nightmare to strip the puck from. If he gets proper coaching on how to better balance trailing the play and more aggressively pressure defenders or push the pace, I think he'll be more involved in the play. All of his flaws are very addressable, but you never know if it will actually happen. Either way his strengths are tremendous. He can shoot, pass and stick handle as well as anyone in the draft. He makes very creative plays and finds holes in the defense very well.
Last edited:
Barry Amsterdam
Nättias Dänielstrom
- Apr 2, 2013
- 5,473
- 4,823
Raymond played Berggren today.
Berggren has 2 assists . 5 points in 3 games to start the season
Berggren has 2 assists . 5 points in 3 games to start the season
And this is also a credit to him understanding his game and being involved and doing things he excels at. And to be quite frank, Perfetti's areas of highest proficiency are the Red Wings areas of greatest deficiency. The only thing that you need to be assured of is whether he can continue to improve in the areas you highlight.
Raymond and Perfetti are very close for me at #4, with Askarov as the third and final player I would be ecstatic to pick at 4 (but I wouldn't lose sleep over Drysdale), so these polls are looking great to me.
They did a draft preview on the Wing's for Breakfast podcast today, and as always Prashanth Iyer made his case for not picking Askarov. Even though I disagree with a lot of his hockey opinions, I appreciate being aware of the arguments made for opposing opinions to mine. Today, however, I found his arguments too outrageous.
His first point being that you only have 2 goalie positions, and goalies don't play a full season (as well as trending toward playing less games/season). This is true, but disregards that goalies play the full 60 minutes, and even the best D-men average 26 minutes at best.
His next point being the time it takes for a goalie to make the league versus skaters, and that goalies usually enter the league almost in their prime, so you have a much shorter competitive window for goalies. His most egregious error comes next, where he says unless you have an outlier like Carter Hart, Lundqvist is a better example of a goalie's time frame. First, Hart is a much closer comparison to Askarov, since they were both the top goalie prospects for their draft year. Second, Hart wasn't even in the same tier of goalie prospect that Askarov is in, so he's not even a good enough comparable. This is really at the heart of my issue with Iyer's argument. He essentially says that since there's so few comparables for a prospect like Askarov, let's just expand our data set by examining every goalie drafted, and oh look far worse goalie prospects tend to not pan out much. This would be absurd to apply to skaters.
The best places to look for Askarov comparables are top 10 goalie picks (i.e. Price, Fleury, and Montoya). Montoya obviously flopped, although the next 6 picks after him failed to meet expectations as well. Price gave the Canadiens 3 years as a starting goalie at $850k, 2 years at $2.75M ($3.77M 2020 cap adjusted), and 6 years at $6.5M ($8.83M 2020 cap adjusted). That's 11 years of elite goaltending, with half the time at an incredible cap hit, and the other half at a cap hit that is not prohibitive to signing other players. I don't know what bigger competitive window you can want. Why Price was so affordable can partly be attributed to Montreal having capable goaltending that reduced Price's bargaining power. So the lesson here is if you draft Askarov, have a solid tandem in place so he doesn't play 70, 72, 70, and 73 games in 4 of his first 5 seasons like Lundqvist.
Fleury entered as a starter in 05-06 (age 21) in the final year of his ELC. He then played 2 years at $1.3M ($2.4M 2020 cap adjusted) and negotiated his next contract after their 08 loss in the finals where Fleury played 20 games at 1.97GAA and 0.933 Sv%. From these numbers he got 7 years at $5M ($7.2M 2020 adjusted). That's 10 years of very good goaltending at completely reasonable cap hits, despite burning a year of his ELC post draft, and another burnt in the lockout. In the case of Fleury, the lesson is probably that you should have some known quantities on your roster before bringing up the goalie, otherwise the goalie gets all the credit for winning and more bargaining power. By the time Askarov makes the jump at age 20 or 21 (2022/23 or 23/24), Detroit should have Larkin (age 26/27), Mantha (age 28/29), Bert(27/28), Zadina(22/23), Hronek(24/25), and Seider(21/22), as well as next year's high first rounder on the team. Not to mention the 2022 likely high first on the way, and all the 2nd round picks. Askarov will be likely be good in our competitive window and should have support as soon as he makes the jump.
Back to Iyer's argument. His point with Lundqvist was that he took so long to get to the league that you 1) get a shorter time where he is at his peak and 2) have to pay him big money right away because he's so good when he breaks into the league. From the more comparable goalies, we see that Price and Fleury provided very long, competitive windows at reasonable cap hits. Montreal not being able to build around Price was not because he took too much money. Conversely, with Lundqvist, his argument breaks down if extended to any other late blooming prospect. By his terms, you shouldn't draft anyone in the 7th round in case they enter the league later as a star, and command a high cap hit with a short competitive window. Similarly, through this line of reasoning Iyer wouldn't have signed Panarin because he took 5 years to get into the league and only had 2 years before he signed the equivalent cap hit contract to Lundvist's contract after 2 years (they then both signed a similarly sized next contract). I think it breaks down to a weird argument I've seen on here, which is "don't sign stars to big money because then you'll have no room to sign stars to big money".
Please note that if I have Askarov at #1 on my next rankings it's because I committed way too much time to this rant.
They did a draft preview on the Wing's for Breakfast podcast today, and as always Prashanth Iyer made his case for not picking Askarov. Even though I disagree with a lot of his hockey opinions, I appreciate being aware of the arguments made for opposing opinions to mine. Today, however, I found his arguments too outrageous.
His first point being that you only have 2 goalie positions, and goalies don't play a full season (as well as trending toward playing less games/season). This is true, but disregards that goalies play the full 60 minutes, and even the best D-men average 26 minutes at best.
His next point being the time it takes for a goalie to make the league versus skaters, and that goalies usually enter the league almost in their prime, so you have a much shorter competitive window for goalies. His most egregious error comes next, where he says unless you have an outlier like Carter Hart, Lundqvist is a better example of a goalie's time frame. First, Hart is a much closer comparison to Askarov, since they were both the top goalie prospects for their draft year. Second, Hart wasn't even in the same tier of goalie prospect that Askarov is in, so he's not even a good enough comparable. This is really at the heart of my issue with Iyer's argument. He essentially says that since there's so few comparables for a prospect like Askarov, let's just expand our data set by examining every goalie drafted, and oh look far worse goalie prospects tend to not pan out much. This would be absurd to apply to skaters.
The best places to look for Askarov comparables are top 10 goalie picks (i.e. Price, Fleury, and Montoya). Montoya obviously flopped, although the next 6 picks after him failed to meet expectations as well. Price gave the Canadiens 3 years as a starting goalie at $850k, 2 years at $2.75M ($3.77M 2020 cap adjusted), and 6 years at $6.5M ($8.83M 2020 cap adjusted). That's 11 years of elite goaltending, with half the time at an incredible cap hit, and the other half at a cap hit that is not prohibitive to signing other players. I don't know what bigger competitive window you can want. Why Price was so affordable can partly be attributed to Montreal having capable goaltending that reduced Price's bargaining power. So the lesson here is if you draft Askarov, have a solid tandem in place so he doesn't play 70, 72, 70, and 73 games in 4 of his first 5 seasons like Lundqvist.
Fleury entered as a starter in 05-06 (age 21) in the final year of his ELC. He then played 2 years at $1.3M ($2.4M 2020 cap adjusted) and negotiated his next contract after their 08 loss in the finals where Fleury played 20 games at 1.97GAA and 0.933 Sv%. From these numbers he got 7 years at $5M ($7.2M 2020 adjusted). That's 10 years of very good goaltending at completely reasonable cap hits, despite burning a year of his ELC post draft, and another burnt in the lockout. In the case of Fleury, the lesson is probably that you should have some known quantities on your roster before bringing up the goalie, otherwise the goalie gets all the credit for winning and more bargaining power. By the time Askarov makes the jump at age 20 or 21 (2022/23 or 23/24), Detroit should have Larkin (age 26/27), Mantha (age 28/29), Bert(27/28), Zadina(22/23), Hronek(24/25), and Seider(21/22), as well as next year's high first rounder on the team. Not to mention the 2022 likely high first on the way, and all the 2nd round picks. Askarov will be likely be good in our competitive window and should have support as soon as he makes the jump.
Back to Iyer's argument. His point with Lundqvist was that he took so long to get to the league that you 1) get a shorter time where he is at his peak and 2) have to pay him big money right away because he's so good when he breaks into the league. From the more comparable goalies, we see that Price and Fleury provided very long, competitive windows at reasonable cap hits. Montreal not being able to build around Price was not because he took too much money. Conversely, with Lundqvist, his argument breaks down if extended to any other late blooming prospect. By his terms, you shouldn't draft anyone in the 7th round in case they enter the league later as a star, and command a high cap hit with a short competitive window. Similarly, through this line of reasoning Iyer wouldn't have signed Panarin because he took 5 years to get into the league and only had 2 years before he signed the equivalent cap hit contract to Lundvist's contract after 2 years (they then both signed a similarly sized next contract). I think it breaks down to a weird argument I've seen on here, which is "don't sign stars to big money because then you'll have no room to sign stars to big money".
Please note that if I have Askarov at #1 on my next rankings it's because I committed way too much time to this rant.
I'll save everyone the 100 pages of debate and just refer to this post from now on.
Actually making a draft board this year helped clarify this for me. How many players could I justify putting above Askarov in terms of upside? My answer was 4, but Askarov is right there with those above him for me. I like Sanderson and Perfetti plenty, but Askarov's upside and likelihood to reach it puts him above them in my eyes. I won't be pissed if they go for one of those players by any means, but Askarov's top end is best goalie of his generation and he addresses our biggest need organizationally on top of that. No hyperbole intended. We are barren from top to bottom at our goalie pipeline. I don't care if people think they could take Askarov later due to his position, I personally take him as early as 5th. He projects to extend whatever team's window of contention by a decade, so long as their roster is otherwise constructed well.
I messed up, voted Lyndell assuming Perfetti was gone, would be Perfetti instead.
FabricDetails
HF still in need of automated text analytics
- Mar 30, 2009
- 8,154
- 3,911
On the draft days, have we ever considered having polls within each selected player's thread to measure how satisfied we are with the picks? For at least the first three rounds?
