GDT: Winnipeg Jets @ Detroit Red Wings - 7:30 - FSD

[Dotter]

Any rebuilding team, no matter what strategy used, simply has to have multiple instances of luck in a short period of time to go along with making good moves.

Penguins got lucky they went bankrupt and became terrible in years they could draft a couple of generational superstars instead of a Yakupov and an Erik Johnson. Hawks got lucky getting Seabrook at #15, Keith in the 2nd round, and the the #1 and #2 picks ahead of them took Erik Johnson and Jordan Staal instead of Toews, etc etc

Wings have a few nice young pieces but need a bit of luck now....get lucky and jump up in the draft lottery and get Dahlin, then have one of the dman prospects exceed expectations and become a top pairing guy.....suddenly the future is looking pretty solid. Sure, that's a lot of ifs and is ultimately probably unlikely to happen.......but I don't think that's too much different from the luck other championship/great teams have gotten.

Being lucky is an understatement. It cannot be stressed enough. NHL is trying to make it so purposefully tanking isn't a guarantee and that luck/unluck is going to be the biggest true deciding factor if you're a contender in 10 years, or starting another 10 year+ rebuild.

There are bad GMs out there that can and do screw it up. I'd bet the farm Ken Holland isn't going to be one of them. But bad luck can make the best GMs in the history of the game look like hot garbage to tunnel visioned fans that can't see past the TANK, TANK, TANK, Oohrah! Mindless battle cry...

 

[lomekian]

I like the draft lottery. We're actually going to get a shot at Dahlin despite Arizona and buffablow being so much worse

To be fair, anyone's opinion about the lottery will be significantly influenced by how it pans out for them. If We'd jumped up a few places and had access to the best players last year, or if we fluke a 1 or 2 pick this year, we'll love the lottery around here!

 

[lomekian]

The problem is that where they are picking it's less about just making better picks and more about just getting stupidly lucky. And after already getting stupidly lucky twice with Z and D, I'm not sure it's a well we should feel comfortable going back to for awhile. Compare it to poker, you might win going all-in on a pair of deuces, but you probably won't because the odds are tremendously against you.

As I went into significant analysis in another thread, our draft picks in the first 2 rounds over the decade before Mantha were not the worst any given year, as we got decent low level NHL-ers from most of them, BUT taking the decade as an aggregate, we massively underperformed compared to the places just after our draft positions in terms of getting real impact players.

In those draft positions only really Mccollum and perhaps Kindl can be seen as busts - so we bust less in draft positions 20-50 than most teams. But we've struck gold in those positions less than 80% of the NHL in the years 02-12. And thats the problem.

Of course if you can pick up a Crosby, an Ovi, a Tavares, a McDavid, a Kane, a Hedman etc its a massive transformation for a franchise. But in the time frame in question, there have been plenty of players that have been drafted after we are picking who would be the top or near the top players on our team, and most teams in the NHL have snagged at least one of them.

Rounds 3 (and especially 4 onwards) to 7, we stack up well with almost anyone.

The good thing is, unless the lottery keeps working against us, we are going to get more chances at better picks than we've had in decades in the coming years, barring brilliant management and development coaching, that most who want us to tank believe that KH etc are incapable of.

If KH is better than the optimists think, we'll challenge again.
If he's as bad as the pessimists think, we'll bomb for a couple more years, and then challenge again.

 

[Dotter]

To be fair, anyone's opinion about the lottery will be significantly influenced by how it pans out for them. If We'd jumped up a few places and had access to the best players last year, or if we fluke a 1 or 2 pick this year, we'll love the lottery around here!

I personally already like the lottery even tho it never benefited us. I LOVE the fact that the NHL is trying to discourage purposefully scorched earth tanking. I love seeing teams that try to lose are getting kicked in the nuts!

And to be honest, I would LOVE to see NHL do more to hurt the teams that try to fail.. and I know I am alone with this belief. I want to see teams struggle to keep their entry level players on a shorter time frame so other teams can poach/pry the (example) Marner of the world away from teams like TMLs, or force TML's hand to sign an earlier big contract to have a smaller window of entry level contracts, which results make them lose or force decisions on other future core players they didn't know about yet (Matthews) and potentially losing them to a higher bidding team.

It makes the GMs job harder and have to be more creative. And it will make the offseason more interesting for fans because there will be ungodly amount of trades. And player turnover will be much higher. It'll make things harder for teams to be able to use entry level kids to win cups with.

Many here hate that idea, but man would it make the game much funner for the fans, and a lot harder for the players and GMs to ever feel cushy in their job. It'll also help control the luck factor, because good GMs would be able to use more strategy. I want less predicted up and coming teams, and see more crapshoots 'who's this team winning'. Who is going to be the next elite team? You think it might be team X, but they just lost their entry-level super-stud to team B... so now it might be team K. Nobody knows and Vegas odds will be chaotic every day.

 

[Winger98]

As I went into significant analysis in another thread, our draft picks in the first 2 rounds over the decade before Mantha were not the worst any given year, as we got decent low level NHL-ers from most of them, BUT taking the decade as an aggregate, we massively underperformed compared to the places just after our draft positions in terms of getting real impact players.

In those draft positions only really Mccollum and perhaps Kindl can be seen as busts - so we bust less in draft positions 20-50 than most teams. But we've struck gold in those positions less than 80% of the NHL in the years 02-12. And thats the problem.

Of course if you can pick up a Crosby, an Ovi, a Tavares, a McDavid, a Kane, a Hedman etc its a massive transformation for a franchise. But in the time frame in question, there have been plenty of players that have been drafted after we are picking who would be the top or near the top players on our team, and most teams in the NHL have snagged at least one of them.

Rounds 3 (and especially 4 onwards) to 7, we stack up well with almost anyone.

The good thing is, unless the lottery keeps working against us, we are going to get more chances at better picks than we've had in decades in the coming years, barring brilliant management and development coaching, that most who want us to tank believe that KH etc are incapable of.

If KH is better than the optimists think, we'll challenge again.
If he's as bad as the pessimists think, we'll bomb for a couple more years, and then challenge again.

well, you were looking at ~300 picks there, weren't you? I've seen the average production for players by round before, and broken down by groups of picks. We've hit homers with guys like Tatar and Nyquist, even if they haven't been as good as some guys other teams have nabbed at similar points in the draft. Outside of Rasmussen (and McCollum - I'm entirely against picking goalies in the first round) I don't really have qualms with our drafting.

My only qualm is that if Holland is as bad as some fear, it's going to be a couple more years before we really begin rebuilding, and then a few more years after that where we start seeing the fruits of it.

And to be honest, I would LOVE to see NHL do more to hurt the teams that try to fail.. and I know I am alone with this belief. I want to see teams struggle to keep their entry level players on a shorter time frame so other teams can poach/pry the (example) Marner of the world away from teams like TMLs, or force TML's hand to sign an earlier big contract to have a smaller window of entry level contracts, which results make them lose or force decisions on other future core players they didn't know about yet (Matthews) and potentially losing them to a higher bidding team.

You're just going to see a greater chasm in pay between the stars and the depth, with teams locking up Marner, Matthews, etc. and then either continually filling in the gaps with cheaper help. Also, players aren't going to buy into the idea of constantly moving because, not surprisingly, they like stability.

In the end, we need to quit hoping the league games the system so we don't have to go through some lean years.

 

[Winger98]

Same as you I dread being in "purgatory". I'm fine with making the playoffs and drafting 15th, but missing and drafting 14th wouldn't be fun. We had bad luck last summer though, most years we get a top 5 pick there. If nothing drastic happens this year we'll probably finish in a similar position, maybe even worse. I don't think bottom 5-6 in the leagues is purgatory at all. All things considered it's a pretty good "rebuilding position". Not a total trainwreck where players are completely miserable, but still good odds at a top 3 pick and a guaranteed top 10.

If we're picking in that 5-8 area I like our chances to get something good at some point, too. I know I have a weirdly optimistic outlook for how good this team is, which leads me to an equally weird pessimism for where it's going.

 

[Redder Winger]

Last draft Detroit Red Wings drafted more prospects than they had in over 20+ years. You are "probability/odds" person, right? Do Wings have a better chance at snagging more talent if they have more draft picks to work with? I think that gives them a better chance than "scorched earth" and possibly drafting 4th-7th after finishing bottom 5.?

They didn't draft a single f***ing player who struck me as a potential game-changing kind of player.
What a waste of a draft.
They drafted a bunch of f***ing grinders.

 

[Dotter]

You're just going to see a greater chasm in pay between the stars and the depth, with teams locking up Marner, Matthews, etc. and then either continually filling in the gaps with cheaper help. Also, players aren't going to buy into the idea of constantly moving because, not surprisingly, they like stability.

In the end, we need to quit hoping the league games the system so we don't have to go through some lean years.

The league gamed the system when they put in a Salary cap. The world could have lived without Les Vegas, AZ, Minny, CBJ, Jets, Flordia and all the other low budget teams.

And that's a good point. Teams will overpay their generational stars to the point their depth will be so weak where a more rounded depth playoff team could easily beat them. Not one strategy will work and it forces GMs to be more creative... and more cautious. And makes scorched earth tanking pointless because mid round players might be more important than one star player eating 30% of the salary cap.

Imagine Pens have Crosby, Malkin and Letang with the rest of the team being an $800k goalie, Scott Wilson, Nick Jensen and Luke Glendenings of the world competing with a depth team that has no superstars, but depth guys like Zack Parise, Suter, Staal and much more talent down the line-up that can roll 4 lines.

Crosby and Malkin would virtually need to score 3 goals per game and hope Wilson and Glendenning can pop a few in. Point is, it'll make top heavy teams less desirable to build around while making depth the #1 key to any teams success. Shares the wealth so the teams the NHL is trying to build up (Vegas, Arizona) can get some McDavid's and Matthews of teh world to build around and put on posters for a bigger fan draw. The NHL wants to make that money. Making every team having the chance to be created equal and all the teams are equally as good as the next make every single season exciting for its fan.

The NHL wants to make more money. And it'll expose the bad GMs very quickly.

 

[Dotter]

They didn't draft a single ****ing player who struck me as a potential game-changing kind of player.
What a waste of a draft.
They drafted a bunch of ****ing grinders.

Last year? The year that might go down in time as one of the worst draft classes the past decade? That one?

Such a waste of a draft they couldn't save those picks for a year there's an enormous amount of talent in every round... tho not sure NHL works that way. /shrugs

Ken Holland (at podium): "This entry draft selection we'd like to push it to next season or the one after that, thank you." (As he proceeds to go sit back down.)

If only...

 

[Winger98]

The league gamed the system when they put in a Salary cap. The world could have lived without Les Vegas, AZ, Minny, CBJ, Jets, Flordia and all the other low budget teams.

And that's a good point. Teams will overpay their generational stars to the point their depth will be so weak where a more rounded depth playoff team could easily beat them. Not one strategy will work and it forces GMs to be more creative... and more cautious. And makes scorched earth tanking pointless because mid round players might be more important than one star player eating 30% of the salary cap.

Imagine Pens have Crosby, Malkin and Letang with the rest of the team being an $800k goalie, Scott Wilson, Nick Jensen and Luke Glendenings of the world competing with a depth team that has no superstars, but depth guys like Zack Parise, Suter, Staal and much more talent down the line-up that can roll 4 lines.

Crosby and Malkin would virtually need to score 3 goals per game and hope Wilson and Glendenning can pop a few in. Point is, it'll make top heavy teams less desirable to build around while making depth the #1 key to any teams success. Shares the wealth so the teams the NHL is trying to build up (Vegas, Arizona) can get some McDavid's and Matthews of teh world to build around and put on posters for a bigger fan draw. The NHL wants to make that money. Making every team having the chance to be created equal and all the teams are equally as good as the next make every single season exciting for its fan.

The NHL wants to make more money. And it'll expose the bad GMs very quickly.

Depth guys that grabbed some of the biggest contracts signed at the time? It won't be guys like Glendening and Wilson getting pinched, it's going to be the Tatars and Nyquists. They could play the market, but we'll see the same thing we see now with UFA - the majority of teams will have their rosters locked in with their best players signed, leaving less actual bidding for whoever is on the open market.

We've already seen this play out the same way every time the league has tried lowering the UFA age.

 

[Redder Winger]

Last year? The year that might go down in time as one of the worst draft classes the past decade? That one?

Such a waste of a draft they couldn't save those picks for a year there's an enormous amount of talent in every round... tho not sure NHL works that way. /shrugs

Ken Holland (at podium): "This entry draft selection we'd like to push it to next season or the one after that, thank you." (As he proceeds to go sit back down.)

If only...

There was skill all over the draft. The Wings chose a different direction

 

[ArGarBarGar]

How many teams tank when their owner who brought the "Dead Things" to "Hockeytown" is living on borrowed time and are enjoying a 24 year playoff streak....? something that the owner is clearly proud of.

If he was proud of it the last few years before he passed, he was proud of a sham. The extension of the streak doesn't matter if you are just first round fodder and a pretender for the cup. The entire point Ilitch threw so much money at the Wings to begin with.

How many teams that have such an important owner, who has a short time to live, who has fought so hard to build a brand new state of the art 1 billion dollar arena purposely tank?

It isn't "compete or tank." I think this has been discussed numerous times which makes your arguments come off as disingenuous. Also, if they had made moves to rebuild the roster when Lidstrom retired they might have a nice new set of pieces to show off for the new arena. And considering I haven't yet seen the arena packed since it has been opened, it seems like that strategy didn't pay off, did it?

Seems you convienvly left those facts out. People are all die hard "TANK, TANK, TANK" without considering any important background information. The problem is you (and others) don't think it's important. It's about "what have you done for me lately" without considering how ownership, ya know the people who pay the salaries, feel.

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet. *****ing isn't going to change anything. And honestly, I don't think they need to change anything now the streak is ended, they are on track.

I didn't say "TANK, TANK, TANK", and your quick assumption that I think the strategy should be tank or bust is disingenuous on your part.

And yes, I do have an opinion on the hockey team because I have spent time and money on the team since I had money to spend, up until recently. I don't pay to see the Wings anymore. I don't buy merchandise for the Wings anymore. I don't even watch them as often as I used to, and a lot of the time I only have it on in the background. I am not the same consumer of the Wings I used to be, so yes, I am already voting with my wallet. And so are a lot of people considering this new state of the art rink looks half empty a lot of the time.

And no the Helm, Abby and etc contracts don't bother me. They are overpaid for a reason. And that's to have gut and heart support for the future health of the team during these dark times. Can you imagine what Mantha's development would look like if he doesn't have people out there -leading by example- working their butts off?

This is a bad point. A horribly bad point. Helm and Abdelkader are not the only players in the league who have guts and heart. Take any player that is fighting for an NHL contract year after year and they are just as likely to have guts and the drive to give it their all every shift. Hell you bring up any of the kids we have and I'm sure they could fill the heart quota without question. You do not sign players to multi-year deals because they have heart. That's idiotic.

 

[Dotter]

And considering I haven't yet seen the arena packed since it has been opened, it seems like that strategy didn't pay off, did it?

[...]

I am not the same consumer of the Wings I used to be, so yes, I am already voting with my wallet. And so are a lot of people considering this new state of the art rink looks half empty a lot of the time

According to Tom Wilson, president and CEO of Olympia Entertainment, the arena is selling out each and every game.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

According to Tom Wilson, president and CEO of Olympia Entertainment, the arena is selling out each and every game.

Cool, and they can't seem to entice all those people who already paid money to actually go to the games.

It isn't a good look and doesn't at all contradict the points that I made.

 

[lomekian]

The Wings already suck, but they suck a little less than the other non playoff teams. The Wings aren't making the playoffs for a very long time. You might as well make the best out of a bad situation.

I seriously hope people don't think that this team is gonna be on the outside looking in for a couple more seasons and then go back to being a playoff team for the next 5-6 years. Teams with no elite talent at any position don't get anywhere with 8-10 overall picks. All it does is create a vicious cycle of purgatory that only ends when ownership purges the organization from top to bottom and brings in new management to oversee a traditional rebuild.

Folks gotta realize that the decisions the Wings have been making for the past nine years, where they kept kicking the can down the road, now means that a complete tear down is the only viable strategy.

8-10 picks

Sergachev, Werenski, Nylander, Ehlers, Ristolainen, Horvat, Trouba, Couturier, Hamilton, Granlund, Couture.....most of those guys would make a big difference to this team

not to mention 10-15
McAvoy, Bean, Larkin, Domi, Morrissey, Wennberg, Forsberg, Ceci, Fowler, Schwartz, Ellis, Myers. Karlsson, Mcdonagh, Shattenkirk.

Ok in the last decade that is only 1, maybe 2 franchise players so far (others that might become that), but out of 80 possibles, 25 would definitely be top line players for us, and a few more that may yet become that. So if you draft well, you can absolutely have a major impact on a franchise picking 8-15.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

There was skill all over the draft. The Wings chose a different direction

And if they took skill like Vilardi or Valimaki and they are puttering around in a few years, the consensus here would have been "drafted more small, skilled guys when you already have and are locked in to Tatar, Nyquist, etc.

I mean, which is it? Do we stand no chance at getting an "elite, game-breaking talent" outside of the top 5 (which is the strongest argument for "tanking") or were they there at #9 and later and we just decided not to take them?

I have no problem with what the Wings took last year. Would I have liked a Liljegren or Necas pick? Probably... but Rasmussen seems to be a really good hockey player. And right now, that's what I care about getting. Really good hockey players. Even if Razzy tops out as 2008 Dan Cleary (20-25g wing or top end scoring depth with grit and defense), I'm thoroughly satisfied with that pick.

 

[lomekian]

From what I can tell, illitch thinks he's better off by keeping us out of the bottom which would hemorrhage casual fans (most of the fans) and revenue as a result. This strategy would continue, as it has for the past half a dozen years, until we strike gold again in the draft with our mediocre picks.

The alternative is to try to quickly turn it around by "tanking" for what would hopefully be only a few years. During this time fans/revenue would predictably decline. The payoff is that afterward you hopefully have good talent to build a competitive team around and attract fans with for the next decade. There is, of course, risk to this. You could fail to actually acquire elite talent and then youve tanked and lost revenue for nothing, and will have to spend more time at the bottom, and lose even more money.

I can see I'll tichels perspective as an owner where he wouldn't want to risk doing a rebuild and getting nothing to show for it for quite some time. He'd rather play it safe.

From my perspective as a fan, that strategy blows. I'd rather have the excitement of possibly getting a great talent in the draft, than being able to watch slightly better hockey all season (that is still mostly unwatchable) with an extremely small chance at getting elite talent.

Fortunately Holland is a moron and can't even implement illitchs greed strategy of keeping us semi competitive, we suck anyway which means we have a realistic shot at elite talent via the draft. I just fear his refusal to accept that we suck will prevent us from effectively rebuilding while we are close to the bottom. He might try to keep improving by signing more vets, while Larkin/Mantha improve and do an OK job at keeping us out of the bottom 10 and closer to the bottom 15-10 range. Meaning we still have no elite talent and were no longer bad enough to realistically draft any. For the next decade.

Or he could do exactly as he says he's going, and sell of UFAs and the odd veteran every time we look like we don't make the playoffs and pick high-ish and often for a few years in a row unless things unexpectedly improve.

 

[lomekian]

Dotter, you seem to be under the impression that Holland's only alternative to tanking was to sign guys like Helm and Abdelkader to golden parachute contracts. Even if I'm staunchly against anything resembling a tank...that doesn't force me to spend every cent I have as rashly as possible. There's a whole lot of happy medium in between 'scorched earth' and 'country club'.

Of course, the last couple of years of abby's contract might be brutal if he picks up injuries, but this year so far sees him with 18 points in 27 games & a +2 on a losing team, despite playing with more than injury. Even he wasn't remotely physical, thats a rather good return so far. Of course he'll slow down and not hit nearly 60 points, but right now he's on course for a career year despite playing at least half of those games on the 3rd line.

As for Helm, he is overpaid, but his speed is important to us, and if one wants to keep the loyalty to vets carrot, I suppose it makes some sense. Personally, I get the impression his contract was inflated as a result of being dicked around by Blash in his first year as coach.

 

[lomekian]

Exactly. The issue I've had for a long time, which was justifiable when we were still winning, was the super slow and super conservative integration of draft talent. The moment we missed out on Suter, there should've been a change in philosophy. I loved the streak, but Holland definitely stagnated the team while extending it an extra 3-4 years. I understood and sympathized with the motive, but disagreed with the method. That said, we're not in a terrible position as is. If a few of the prospects pan out and we draft some more good ones, that's basically the rebuild. I'm not fixating on that once-in-a-blue-moon generational talent, because I like my sanity. I'd rather find out if our scouting/development is good enough with the higher picks they haven't had in more than 20 years.

Agree. While I do think maintaining the streak WAS a worthwhile aim, I think we can all agree that he could have kept the aim while being a bit less conservative in 2013-2016. He made some bad trades, some dubious FA signings, and waited too long to give certain kids a chance (and then in all likelihood, trade them!)

 

[lomekian]

And if they took skill like Vilardi or Valimaki and they are puttering around in a few years, the consensus here would have been "drafted more small, skilled guys when you already have and are locked in to Tatar, Nyquist, etc.

I mean, which is it? Do we stand no chance at getting an "elite, game-breaking talent" outside of the top 5 (which is the strongest argument for "tanking") or were they there at #9 and later and we just decided not to take them?

I have no problem with what the Wings took last year. Would I have liked a Liljegren or Necas pick? Probably... but Rasmussen seems to be a really good hockey player. And right now, that's what I care about getting. Really good hockey players. Even if Razzy tops out as 2008 Dan Cleary (20-25g wing or top end scoring depth with grit and defense), I'm thoroughly satisfied with that pick.

I was happy-ish with the pick, but would picked 2 or 3 ahead of him...but after seeing us really struggle against size really, a couple more big guys who can score could help a lot if we going to be keeping Tats &/or Nike...

 

[lomekian]

well, you were looking at ~300 picks there, weren't you? I've seen the average production for players by round before, and broken down by groups of picks. We've hit homers with guys like Tatar and Nyquist, even if they haven't been as good as some guys other teams have nabbed at similar points in the draft. Outside of Rasmussen (and McCollum - I'm entirely against picking goalies in the first round) I don't really have qualms with our drafting.

My only qualm is that if Holland is as bad as some fear, it's going to be a couple more years before we really begin rebuilding, and then a few more years after that where we start seeing the fruits of it.
.

I don't disagree. On balance our drafting is fine (certainly up front), and outside the 1st round has been v good at exceeding average point expectations. But it is frustrating that while most are not as good on a pick by pick basis, 2/3 of the NHL have picked real difference makers with picks that were available to us. I'm less saying its a massive organisational failure, but more that for a team so good at turning late picks into good roster players, we have been comparatively bad at picking up genuine first line-ers among the top 2 rounds. Sadly 3 third liners are not the same value as a first liner, regardless of what the NHL games tell us.

My main point is, that had we been like 2/3 of the NHL and been a bit worse at consistently drafting roster players in rounds late 1 & 2, and a bit better at picking up 1st line forwards or top 3 d-men in those positions, the rebuild on the fly might have been the endless streak remaining competitive wet dream of Ken Holland's that so many on here say was inevitably impossible.

And of course, if you could swap those records for picks 20-60 and keep our ability in rounds 4,5,6 & 7, we'd actually have not dropped out of the top 10 in the NHL...

 

[Frk It]

But it is frustrating that while most are not as good on a pick by pick basis, 2/3 of the NHL have picked real difference makers with picks that were available to us.

I do think this is a big reason why people want to see us draft the most skilled players possible, and get a bit frustrated when they feel we do not. I think we have played it pretty safe with our draft picks for a little while now, particularly when drafting centers as opposed to wingers.

 

[Redder Winger]

And if they took skill like Vilardi or Valimaki and they are puttering around in a few years, the consensus here would have been "drafted more small, skilled guys when you already have and are locked in to Tatar, Nyquist, etc.

I mean, which is it? Do we stand no chance at getting an "elite, game-breaking talent" outside of the top 5 (which is the strongest argument for "tanking") or were they there at #9 and later and we just decided not to take them?

I have no problem with what the Wings took last year. Would I have liked a Liljegren or Necas pick? Probably... but Rasmussen seems to be a really good hockey player. And right now, that's what I care about getting. Really good hockey players. Even if Razzy tops out as 2008 Dan Cleary (20-25g wing or top end scoring depth with grit and defense), I'm thoroughly satisfied with that pick.

LOL.
Well, that's how you prolong rebuilds.
Dan Cleary amounts to nothing if he's not on a team with Zetterberg and Cleary.

 

[Frk It]

And if they took skill like Vilardi or Valimaki and they are puttering around in a few years, the consensus here would have been "drafted more small, skilled guys when you already have and are locked in to Tatar, Nyquist, etc.

I mean, which is it? Do we stand no chance at getting an "elite, game-breaking talent" outside of the top 5 (which is the strongest argument for "tanking") or were they there at #9 and later and we just decided not to take them?

I have no problem with what the Wings took last year. Would I have liked a Liljegren or Necas pick? Probably... but Rasmussen seems to be a really good hockey player. And right now, that's what I care about getting. Really good hockey players. Even if Razzy tops out as 2008 Dan Cleary (20-25g wing or top end scoring depth with grit and defense), I'm thoroughly satisfied with that pick.

2 things

1) Having Nyquist and Tatar on the team should impact 0% who we take with our first draft pick. Tatar and Nyquist not becoming Datsyuk and Zetterberg should deter us 0% from drafting more "small skilled players" in the future. Not singling you out, but I can't stand how often I see this reasoning thrown out there.

2) ***THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT*** Know what we need? A PPG player. I don't care if they are 7'5" or 5'7". I have liked plenty of big prospects with skill. I have liked plenty of small prospects with skill. The common denominator is that I want the most skilled guy more often than not.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

2 things

1) Having Nyquist and Tatar on the team should impact 0% who we take with our first draft pick. Tatar and Nyquist not becoming Datsyuk and Zetterberg should deter us 0% from drafting "small skilled players". Not singling you out, but I can't stand how often I see this reasoning thrown out there.

2) Know what we need? A PPG player. I don't care if they are 7'5" or 5'7". I have liked plenty of big prospects with skill. I have liked plenty of small prospects with skill. The common denominator is that I want the most skilled guy more often than not.

Ok... that all makes sense. I like arguing against you a hell of a lot more, Frk It.

I was saying that, using history as a barometer, the Wings got lambasted for continuing to take small, soft Euro wingers, going skill over size to a fault. I agree that having them shouldn't deter you, but I also think that at some point, you have to kind of balance the boat. Too small and skilled, you get beat up. Too big and unskilled, you get zipped around. Size shouldn't be a determining factor, but if you have a bunch of smaller, weaker on their skates wingers... at some point you will need that thumper to continue to give them room. The reason we got hammered out of the playoffs in consecutive years by Boston and Tampa is that none of our more skilled guys have been able to make hay once other teams start taking the body to them and killing their open ice. They need something that can keep the ice open for a guy like Tatar to take shots and make moves. Like when Abby pulled the piano and cleared the lane for Datsyuk in our playoff win against the Bruins.

And I understand the "I want the most skilled player, no matter what" talking point. I agree. I would rather the more skilled player too. The thing is, I do not think that Rasmussen is unskilled. I do not think that he's such a plodding loser compared to Vilardi or Necas. And it really just strikes me that outside of Razzy, how many of the Wings future top 6 really could make their own room?

Mantha can.
Larkin is still too small. He can speed around, but teams will eventually plan for him.
AA can speed around, but teams will eventually plan for him.
Tatar and Nyquist, unless something changes, clearly don't handle pressure well.
Who knows what Svech and friends at GR are capable of.

I can understand wanting another guy than Rasmussen but I just think your expectations are wildly out of whack if you expect a PPG player with a #9OA pick. They have the ability to do so, but it is still a wild success if they do. The much higher likelihood is that they're exactly what I said. 2008 Dan Cleary who pots 50p while playing two way hockey.