Tyler Wright: Red Wings trying to be trend setters at draft

[Ingvar]

Fedorov.
Lidstrom.
Konstantinov.
Datsyuk.
Zetterberg.
Forsberg.
Hull.
Sakic.
Bergeron
Kopitar.
Keith.
Seabrook.
Hossa.
Kucherov.
Giroux.
Gaudreau.
Scheifele.
Tarasenko.
Pastrnak.
Marchand.
Benn.
OEL.
Subban.
Weber.

How many elite superstar players outside of the top 3 do you need?

You listed 24 players over the span of more than 24 years. Supposing that drafting them is random (which is not true but you also don't consider that in your list) and Detroit have drafted 5 of them it is highly likely from probability standpoint that Red Wings won't draft another one in your lifetime.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Little things like skating, offensive ability and physicality are hard to miss.

You know who stood out?
Liljegren.
Dahlin.
A kid named David Farrance (defenseman drafted by, who else, Nashville).
There's nothing "sneaky" about their skill or ability. In a best on best tournament, they stood out.

A generational prospect and a guy who was playing against men at 16 stood out in a meaningless summer junior tourney? You clearly have an eye for talent! As for Farrance.. you know who is scoring at about twice the rate he is in the NCAA? Kotkansalo.

Skating, offensive ability and physicality can all vastly improve from when kids are 18 to when they’re 23-25 which is when D-men usually start hitting their prime (often later). Thinking you can watch the WJC showcase and perfectly project 5+ years of development is the very definition of delusional.

 

[lomekian]

This discussion doesn't really reflect that fact that for about 15 years every wings forum was complaining about us never drafting any skilled guys with size.

Lest we forget, our roster is Mantha, Ericsson and then no-one else above the NHL average size. On a 21-23 man roster. We remain one of the smallest rosters in the NHL, and people are complaining like hell because, shock horror, we put slightly greater priority on size with some of our early picks than in, over a decade.

Do I think we should tried harder to get an early second round skill guy via trading picks...yup...I was really hoping we might get Heponiemi, and he's currently smashing all expectations I had for him, but we went with Lindstrom instead, which I was disappointed by. Frankly i would have taken Jason Robertson, Anderson-Dolan and others ahead of Lindstrom, and maybe some different choices in the 3rd round. But we needed D, and its still too early to say.

I think Wright earlier said that high end skill would be a greater priority in this deeper draft, and if he sticks to that, I'll be happy, as we need a good range of types. It'll certainly be nice to not be dominated by every 6 foot 4 center in the league just by virtue of size. Z & Pav in days gone by, and even flip & glendening have been excellent at shutting down 5"10-6"1 skilled centers, but could never deal with Jordan Staal or Bjugstad

 

[obey86]

The ONLY question we should be asking Is, did we pass on a more skilled player for a player with more size or character?

That's all that matters

If the answer is no then who cares

If the answer is yes then thats a that's big big problem

It's not that easy though...and certainly never that black and white:

Player A is an 80 on the skill scale but a 37 on the size scale.
Player B is a 74 on the skill scale but a 94 on the size scale.

Who do you take? Give me player B all day, even if he's "less skilled."

Then, of course, you have the weigh in the likelihood of each player ever reaching said expectations (along with a whole host of other factors).

 

[Reddwit]

The only trend in drafting that should be used as a guide for assembling a contender is to draft for skill first. You can be big and ballsy or fast and finessed or surgical and possession-based but none of that happens without skill. You don't go looking for players of a certain type. You gather as many highly skilled players as it takes and go from there.

No team has ever won the Cup without elite skill. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Reddwit]

It's not that easy though...and certainly never that black and white:

Player A is an 80 on the skill scale but a 37 on the size scale.
Player B is a 74 on the skill scale but a 94 on the size scale.

Who do you take? Give me player B all day, even if he's "less skilled."

Then, of course, you have the weigh in the likelihood of each player ever reaching said expectations (along with a whole host of other factors).

This is a nearly useless example on that scale. In reality, the difference between a player with a skill of "80" and a skill of "74" is probably barely noticeable, and that's if they play the same position and role.

 

[Reddwit]

This discussion doesn't really reflect that fact that for about 15 years every wings forum was complaining about us never drafting any skilled guys with size.

And? The NHL has changed drastically in that time. People were complaining about not having size and physicality during an era where Datsyuk and Zetterberg could literally be rag-dolled away from the puck and the whistle finger of a ref wouldn't even twitch. Do yourself a favor (or a disservice): go back and watch tape of the 2007 playoffs and laugh (or cry) as you watch as every other play features what would be an easy penalty not 10 years later. If you really want to lament what might have been had officiating changes occurred 5 years sooner, go back and watch the 2003 and 2004 series. It practically looks like criminal assault all over the ice and the game moves at a snail's pace.

 

[Dotter]

This discussion doesn't really reflect that fact that for about 15 years every wings forum was complaining about us never drafting any skilled guys with size.

Those people don't post here anymore. We have a new breed here now.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The only trend in drafting that should be used as a guide for assembling a contender is to draft for skill first. You can be big and ballsy or fast and finessed or surgical and possession-based but none of that happens without skill. You don't go looking for players of a certain type. You gather as many highly skilled players as it takes and go from there.

No team has ever won the Cup without elite skill. Everything else is secondary.

Yet Boston, Anaheim and to some extent even LA were not the most skilled teams. I mean "elite skill" is rather vague and I'm sure you want to bend that definition to fit players like Kopitar, Doughty, Bergeron, Krejci, Chara etc. while at the same having the goalposts just out of reach for Larkin/Mantha/Rasmussen/Cholowski/Hronek/etc, but it's not as simple as more skill always winning more.

Using Obey's example, if we want to beat say Toronto, who would you rather be?

Toronto :

Skill - 90
Size - 70

Potential Red Wings Team A:

Skill - 85
Size - 65

Potential Red Wings team B:

Skill - 80
Size - 80

Which team would have a bigger chance to take Toroto out? This is obviously extremely simplified and there are other factors like coaching, speed, goaltending, luck etc, but we need to have some nuance in the discussion, we're not talking about the difference between a team full of Datsyuk's or a team full of Glendenings. Larkin is very skilled, Mantha is very skilled, Rasmussen is skilled, we're going to keep drafting skilled players. But if you're not the MOST skilled team in the league you might as well try to find an advantage in other aspects. Speed, character, size.. these could be factors where we end up with an advantage. Factors that elevate us above some other teams despite the fact we don't have a #1C that's more skilled than McDavid.

 

[Frk It]

ChadS said it earlier in this thread, but all you do by thinking you need a certain identity is make it more exclusionary on who you draft, which is never a good thing.

For a team that needs an entirely new core essentially, you’d be much better off just drafting the most skilled or highest upside guys possible, and then your identity just evolves and takes shape from there based on whoever hits.

What’s Tampa’s identity? I don’t think they have one, I think they just try and draft good players. Steve Yzerman drafted some guys with high end puck skills that were undersized (Point, Kucherov), and then also some bigger guys (Raddysh, Katchouk, Foote).

Tyler Wright has drafted no one like Point or Kucherov so far at forward. That’s a concern for me.

 

[obey86]

ChadS said it earlier in this thread, but all you do by thinking you need a certain identity is make it more exclusionary on who you draft, which is never a good thing.

For a team that needs an entirely new core essentially, you’d be much better off just drafting the most skilled or highest upside guys possible, and then your identity just evolves and takes shape from there based on whoever hits.

What’s Tampa’s identity? I don’t think they have one, I think they just try and draft good players. Steve Yzerman drafted some guys with high end puck skills that were undersized (Point, Kucherov), and then also some bigger guys (Raddysh, Katchouk, Foote).

Tyler Wright has drafted no one like Point or Kucherov so far at forward. That’s a concern for me.

There's no evidence that the Wings are only drafting players with a certain identity. Rasmussen and Mantha are huge. Chowloski and Hronek are smaller and (supposedly) skilled. Some players drafted will be more "skilled" and some will be have more "size." I see no evidence in their draft history to show the Wings are purposely avoiding skill to draft size.

As for the 2nd point in bold, the Wings would be better off drafting the guy they feel will have the biggest impact in the NHL, not just the guy with a single attribute that is higher. Whether that means they are super skilled and small or above average skilled and average size is irrelevant to me. Players drafted simply don't fit into a checkbox of "skilled" or "not skilled."

 

[Frk It]

There's no evidence that the Wings are only drafting players with a certain identity. Rasmussen and Mantha are huge. Chowloski and Hronek are smaller and (supposedly) skilled. Some players drafted will be more "skilled" and some will be have more "size." I see no evidence in their draft history to show the Wings are purposely avoiding skill to draft size.

As for the 2nd point in bold, the Wings would be better off drafting the guy they feel will have the biggest impact in the NHL, not just the guy with a single attribute that is higher. Whether that means they are super skilled and small or above average skilled and average size is irrelevant to me. Players drafted simply don't fit into a checkbox of "skilled" or "not skilled."

Read my last paragrah. Tyler Wright has been here for 4 drafts (14, 15, 16, 17)... show me the forwards he has drafted with plus puck skills.

There has been a decent mix with the defenseman. I liked the Hronek and Saarijarvi picks. At forward, I don’t see it.

They also sure preached a specific identity at this last draft for a team that doesn’t have an identity.

 

[Redder Winger]

You listed 24 players over the span of more than 24 years. Supposing that drafting them is random (which is not true but you also don't consider that in your list) and Detroit have drafted 5 of them it is highly likely from probability standpoint that Red Wings won't draft another one in your lifetime.

That's not even a comprehensive list.
That's off the top of my head.

 

[obey86]

Read my last paragrah. Tyler Wright has been here for 4 drafts (14, 15, 16, 17)... show me the forwards he has drafted with plus puck skills. Like the examples I pointed out

There has been a decent mix with the defenseman. I liked the Hronek and Saarijarvi picks. At forward, I don’t see it.

They also sure preached a specific identity at this last draft for a team that doesn’t have an identity.

Can you explain what you mean by "plus puck skills"? That's an extremely broad and nonspecific term.

Anyways, here's a few scouting reports for Evegeny Svechnikov and what some people thought he was prior to draft. Things don't always work out how people think pre-draft (obviously) and just because the Wings haven't had a player turn into Kucherov doesn't mean they don't think the players they have drafted have good skill or whatever. Complain about their ability to evaluate the players they draft, but I still don't see it as a " purposely avoiding skill in the draft for size" problem.

>>>February 2015 – Evgeny Svechnikov is a skilled big man with strength and power. He’s produced impressive QMJHL rookie numbers and it’s not a surprise given his silky smooth puck skills. Svechnikov’s puck handling is particularly impressive in tight quarters where he dangles through legs and sticks with ease. His best quality is adaptability, knowing when to use his power game versus his skilled game. This two-way attacking ability only makes Svechnikov a more attractive prospect. Throughout his development, both internationally and in the CHL, Svechnikov has flashed an explosive skilled game yet also plays a gritty North American game. At this point in time, the team drafting this powerful Russian will have the luxury of molding him into whatever player they choose. His overall package is extremely attractive and suited for the pro game. Brendan Ross

Evgeny Svechnikov


Has excellent size for the wing position, plus the soft hands of a natural scorer. Shoots the puck with aplomb and knows where to go in order to score goals. Is at his best when he uses his size effectively.

The Hockey News





Having a good amount of skill and being big aren't necessary mutually exclusive traits.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Read my last paragrah. Tyler Wright has been here for 4 drafts (14, 15, 16, 17)... show me the forwards he has drafted with plus puck skills.

There has been a decent mix with the defenseman. I liked the Hronek and Saarijarvi picks. At forward, I don’t see it.

They also sure preached a specific identity at this last draft for a team that doesn’t have an identity.

I hear you, but can you really blame him? If you came in to draft for a team with Mantha, Nyquist, Tatar, Pulkkinen, Frk, Jurco, Athanasiou... would your priority be small-ish scoring forwards with puck skills? Other than the 2014 draft he's taken very few forwards at all. Would have been nice with a bit more "plus puck skills" in those forward picks but it's not what I would have thrown a bunch of picks at since we do have skill in our forwards and finding another Nyquist or Tatar doesn't really do anything for our team. If we don't start picking up those kind of guys in the '18 draft though I'll start to get a bit worried.

 

[Frk It]

Can you explain what you mean by "plus puck skills"? That's an extremely broad and nonspecific term.

Anyways, here's a few scouting reports for Evegeny Svechnikov and what some people thought he was prior to draft. Things don't always work out how people think pre-draft (obviously) and just because the Wings haven't had a player turn into Kucherov doesn't mean they don't think the players they have drafted have good skill or whatever. Complain about their ability to evaluate the players they draft, but I still don't see it as a " purposely avoiding skill in the draft for size" problem.

>>>February 2015 – Evgeny Svechnikov is a skilled big man with strength and power. He’s produced impressive QMJHL rookie numbers and it’s not a surprise given his silky smooth puck skills. Svechnikov’s puck handling is particularly impressive in tight quarters where he dangles through legs and sticks with ease. His best quality is adaptability, knowing when to use his power game versus his skilled game. This two-way attacking ability only makes Svechnikov a more attractive prospect. Throughout his development, both internationally and in the CHL, Svechnikov has flashed an explosive skilled game yet also plays a gritty North American game. At this point in time, the team drafting this powerful Russian will have the luxury of molding him into whatever player they choose. His overall package is extremely attractive and suited for the pro game. Brendan Ross

Evgeny Svechnikov


Has excellent size for the wing position, plus the soft hands of a natural scorer. Shoots the puck with aplomb and knows where to go in order to score goals. Is at his best when he uses his size effectively.

The Hockey News





Having a good amount of skill and being big aren't necessary mutually exclusive traits.

Yeah, Svech is the only guy I could think of as well. That’s not nearly enough over a span of 4 drafts though.

I also agree that you can be big and have skill... I mean obviously.

That said, if you want guys with plus puck skills outside of the first round, you probably are going to have to settle for some undersized guys.

Kucherov, Point, Gaudreau, DeBrincat, Arvidsson, etc. Just last year there was Heponiemi playing right out in Tyler Wright’s back yard, who is on pace to possibly break a CHL record. Every year there is a very skilled forward that falls because of size, but shouldn’t. And we haven’t picked any of those types of guys since Wright has been here. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

 

[Frk It]

I hear you, but can you really blame him? If you came in to draft for a team with Mantha, Nyquist, Tatar, Pulkkinen, Frk, Jurco, Athanasiou... would your priority be small-ish scoring forwards with puck skills? Other than the 2014 draft he's taken very few forwards at all. Would have been nice with a bit more "plus puck skills" in those forward picks but it's not what I would have thrown a bunch of picks at since we do have skill in our forwards and finding another Nyquist or Tatar doesn't really do anything for our team. If we don't start picking up those kind of guys in the '18 draft though I'll start to get a bit worried.

Finding another Nyquist or Tatar doesn’t do anything for us. But finding a Kucherov does.

Our issue isn’t that we have small players, it’s just that our small players didn’t become elite players.

But to your first point, it is possible Wright was given a direction and is just going with that direction.... hard to say.

This ‘18 draft should tell us a lot. It should be Wright’s highest pick to date AND he said he is going to look more for skill this year. So he’s setting the bar high, hopefully he can deliver.

 

[Reddwit]

Yet Boston, Anaheim and to some extent even LA were not the most skilled teams. I mean "elite skill" is rather vague and I'm sure you want to bend that definition to fit players like Kopitar, Doughty, Bergeron, Krejci, Chara etc. while at the same having the goalposts just out of reach for Larkin/Mantha/Rasmussen/Cholowski/Hronek/etc, but it's not as simple as more skill always winning more.

What did I just read? Anaheim was not the most skilled team? They were captained by one of the most skilled defenseman of his era and were led by Chris Pronger, Ryan Getzlaf, and Corey Perry to round things out. An elite winger, an elite center, and two elite defenseman. Skill out their ears with Kunitz and McDonald holding down the complementary units.

Same with LA. Doughty and Kopitar complemented by a sexy next tier of Richards, Carter, and Voynov.

You may have an argument with Boston because that team probably doesn't win a Cup without Tim Thomas, but they also don't win the Cup with that nasty depth down the middle in the very skilled bunch of Bergeron, Krejci, and Seguin. Having Marchand and Lucic didn't hurt either.

Oh, wait. I see where you're going with this. False dichotomy, eh? Skill is a dirty word here, is it? No. Sorry. That's not how it works. Being a dirty piece of shit doesn't keep Perry, Kunitz, and Marchand outside of the skilled group. Being a wrecking ball doesn't make Lucic or Richards unskilled. Being a wall in front of the net and on the boards doesn't mean Pronger and Doughty aren't skilled defenseman.

Using Obey's example, if we want to beat say Toronto, who would you rather be?

Toronto :

Skill - 90
Size - 70

Potential Red Wings Team A:

Skill - 85
Size - 65

Potential Red Wings team B:

Skill - 80
Size - 80

Which team would have a bigger chance to take Toroto out? This is obviously extremely simplified and there are other factors like coaching, speed, goaltending, luck etc, but we need to have some nuance in the discussion, we're not talking about the difference between a team full of Datsyuk's or a team full of Glendenings. Larkin is very skilled, Mantha is very skilled, Rasmussen is skilled, we're going to keep drafting skilled players. But if you're not the MOST skilled team in the league you might as well try to find an advantage in other aspects. Speed, character, size.. these could be factors where we end up with an advantage. Factors that elevate us above some other teams despite the fact we don't have a #1C that's more skilled than McDavid.

Obey's example, as I said previously, is a crock. Again, were operating under a false dichotomy. Give me an example of a player who is "skill" 80 and "size" 65. What does that even mean?

What does size mean? Who gets an 80 in size? Is it the emaciated 6'3" Danny Dekeyser who struggles in front of the net or is it the once dominant bull in a China shop Mike Richards at 5'11."

And who gets a higher skill rating? Patrick Kane, Pavel Datsyuk, or Nikita Kucherov?

And what even is skill? How many skill points does Ovechkin get for being arguably the best goal scorer of all time while also being a very incomplete player? How many skill points does Datsyuk get for his takeaways? What counts for more? How many points are rewarded for a skilled shot versus passing versus takeaways versus dekes?

And where the f*** is skating in all of this? What if "80" in "size" and "60" in "skill" is also "15" in "skating?" Do we really need to clone prime Jason Allison to find that out?

This whole disingenuous argument is once against set up to fight an argument no one is making. Size is part of a package as is skill, skating, character, etc. But skill is still king. You have big skilled guys who are dominant, you have small skilled guys who are dominant, but you don't have big unskilled guys who are dominant.

 

[Frk It]

What did I just read? Anaheim was not the most skilled team? They were captained by one of the most skilled defenseman of his era and were led by Chris Pronger, Ryan Getzlaf, and Corey Perry to round things out. An elite winger, an elite center, and two elite defenseman. Skill out their ears with Kunitz and McDonald holding down the complementary units.

Same with LA. Doughty and Kopitar complemented by a sexy next tier of Richards, Carter, and Voynov.

You may have an argument with Boston because that team probably doesn't win a Cup without Tim Thomas, but they also don't win the Cup with that nasty depth down the middle in the very skilled bunch of Bergeron, Krejci, and Seguin. Having Marchand and Lucic didn't hurt either.

Oh, wait. I see where you're going with this. False dichotomy, eh? Skill is a dirty word here, is it? No. Sorry. That's not how it works. Being a dirty piece of **** doesn't keep Perry, Kunitz, and Marchand outside of the skilled group. Being a wrecking ball doesn't make Lucic or Richards unskilled. Being a wall in front of the net and on the boards doesn't mean Pronger and Doughty aren't skilled defenseman.




Obey's example, as I said previously, is a crock. Again, were operating under a false dichotomy. Give me an example of a player who is "skill" 80 and "size" 65. What does that even mean?

What does size mean? Who gets an 80 in size? Is it the emaciated 6'3" Danny Dekeyser who struggles in front of the net or is it the once dominant bull in a China shop Mike Richards at 5'11."

And who gets a higher skill rating? Patrick Kane, Pavel Datsyuk, or Nikita Kucherov?

And what even is skill? How many skill points does Ovechkin get for being arguably the best goal scorer of all time while also being a very incomplete player? How many skill points does Datsyuk get for his takeaways? What counts for more? How many points are rewarded for a skilled shot versus passing versus takeaways versus dekes?

And where the **** is skating in all of this? What if "80" in "size" and "60" in "skill" is also "15" in "skating?" Do we really need to clone prime Jason Allison to find that out?

This whole disingenuous argument is once against set up to fight an argument no one is making. Size is part of a package as is skill, skating, character, etc. But skill is still king. You have big skilled guys who are dominant, you have small skilled guys who are dominant, but you don't have big unskilled guys who are dominant.

Now we’re just being way too generous with what we’re calling skilled, and that’s not helping the discussion either.

Kunitz’s only skill was that he fit perfectly in Crosby’s backpack.

 

[Reddwit]

Now we’re just being way too generous with what we’re calling skilled, and that’s not helping the discussion either.

Kunitz’s only skill was that he fit perfectly in Crosby’s backpack.

Excuse me? Chris Kunitz was a 50-60 point player with Anaheim and probably could've put up more if he didn't spend so much time engaging in shenanigans. If Kunitz isn't skilled, then Nyquist and Tatar definitely aren't.

 

[Frk It]

Excuse me? Chris Kunitz was a 50-60 point player with Anaheim and probably could've put up more if he didn't spend so much time engaging in shenanigans. If Kunitz isn't skilled, then Nyquist and Tatar definitely aren't.

He was a role player, and not a particularly skilled one. Cleary had 46 pts in 68 games... we calling him a skilled guy now too?

I mean I get this stuff is objective, but why we are including Chris Kunitz in a discussion on drafting skilled prospects and establishing a new core... I have not a clue.

 

[Reddwit]

He was a role player, and not a particularly skilled one. Cleary had 46 pts in 68 games... we calling him a skilled guy now too?

I mean I get this stuff is objective, but why we are including Chris Kunitz in a discussion on drafting skilled prospects and establishing a new core... I have not a clue.

If you read the post, I pointed out that Kunitz was a secondary skilled player on that team, but to suggest that Kunitz is not a particularly skilled player is absolute hogwash. Cleary was riding shotgun to top centers and almost had 50 points one time. Whoopie. Chris Kunitz was a 50+ point player seven times, with slightly more than half of those seasons coming in Anaheim. You're massively underrating him and revising history based on his later years in Pittsburgh. Not sure why you felt the need to go on this tangent anyway...If you felt that part of my post wasn't accurate, you should've focused on the other 99% of what was said.

 

[Frk It]

If you read the post, I pointed out that Kunitz was a secondary skilled player on that team, but to suggest that Kunitz is not a particularly skilled player is absolute hogwash. Cleary was riding shotgun to top centers and almost had 50 points one time. Whoopie. Chris Kunitz was a 50+ point player seven times, with slightly more than half of those seasons coming in Anaheim. You're massively underrating him and revising history based on his later years in Pittsburgh. Not sure why you felt the need to go on this tangent anyway...If you felt that part of my post wasn't relevant, you should've focused on the other 99% of what was said.

I had a little hard time following what you were trying to say, to be honest.

I do agree with Anaheim and LA not lacking skill, despite having some bigger guys. Moreso just because of how elite Getzlaf was and how he made everyone else around him better there for awhile. And Kopitar is incredibly skilled for being a big guy, plus they have Doughty on the back end.

Boston is maybe a team you could look at and say won with some two way centers, and tight defense. That might be the closest thing we are building towards now, at least before the top 5 picks come. But even they had Chara who was a 2 way monster, good luck landing one of those via trade or even the draft... it’s one of the hardest things to do.

 

[Red Stanley]

ChadS said it earlier in this thread, but all you do by thinking you need a certain identity is make it more exclusionary on who you draft, which is never a good thing.

For a team that needs an entirely new core essentially, you’d be much better off just drafting the most skilled or highest upside guys possible, and then your identity just evolves and takes shape from there based on whoever hits.

What’s Tampa’s identity? I don’t think they have one, I think they just try and draft good players. Steve Yzerman drafted some guys with high end puck skills that were undersized (Point, Kucherov), and then also some bigger guys (Raddysh, Katchouk, Foote).

Tyler Wright has drafted no one like Point or Kucherov so far at forward. That’s a concern for me.

While it's true that you shouldn't draft exclusively for a specific identity to the detriment of the overall result, you should definitely have some general idea of what kind of team you want to put together. Anything less than that means you have no plan beyond seeing where the chips fall. In Tampa's case, I think Yzerman already had a core (Stamkos and Hedman) to draft around. That makes it easier to draft purely for need. Plus he's had higher picks to work with. His first few year of trying to work with the Lightning's aging core were pretty disastrous and his overall first round drafting doesn't look all that hot. That said, I'm really interested to see where we go with our drafting philosophy this year in particular.

 

[Red Stanley]

Excuse me? Chris Kunitz was a 50-60 point player with Anaheim and probably could've put up more if he didn't spend so much time engaging in shenanigans. If Kunitz isn't skilled, then Nyquist and Tatar definitely aren't.

In a sense you're right. There are tons of NHL players with skill and when put in the right situation under favorable conditions they will shine. The trick is to build a team identity/makeup/whateveryouwanttocallit so that plugging in a Kunitz will work out fine, as opposed to needing a bonafide superstar to get similar results. It's my opinion that building a big, hard-to-play-against team will be easier and will allow us to plug in a Nyquist-type player or two as opposed to mainly shooting for superstars or bust. It'd be absolutely lovely to have both, though.