Prospect Info: 2019 NHL Draft.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Draft the best players period. No matter how much everyone complains, our forward group hasn’t been good enough over the past 5 -10 years to avoid drafting forwards in favor or defensemen if the Wings feel the forward was going to be the better player.

Totally acceptable, but Holland needs to find another way to address the defense then. His aversion to trades needs to go away.
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,764
10,302
Totally acceptable, but Holland needs to find another way to address the defense then. His aversion to trades needs to go away.

Yeah, he definitely needs more aggression when it comes to making trades. Right not, he only seems to make trades out of necessity, rather than actually trying to improve the current roster. Trades to help rebuild are great too, but I think you should also make trades, if they are actively helping now, without throwing the future away. Take Dekeyser for example, I still feel, even with my disdain for him, that some teams out there, would want him, and trading him and letting some other outside Detroit D fill his role would be a good "risk" to take.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
I also believe it is out there that we have drafted the least amount of D-man of any team over a significant interval before around here. We don't take chances down the board there either often.

I am a BPA person, but you either need to be trading some of the glut of forwards for d-man or trying to select more to hopefully hit on a few lower ones or something. Currently we have built up to an area where a change of strategy on how to assemble out blueline is probably needed. I even like a few of the prospects in Hronek and Cholowski a lot but this is the big part of the rebuild that needs answering. Using the same strategy at this point probably isn't great for the answer. Holland needs to tie this part together, I don't really care if he figures it out miraculously through Karlsson, next two drafts or trading forward talent to fix the back-end and replenish the forwards in the next couple drafts, but they do hopefully have a plan and are looking for opportunities that meet their vision. If not we are building the current Leafs a team that can score but who has an atrocious D that isn't going to win anything as the best case scenario in my opinion.

For the record I think Holland can probably find these answers which makes me different than most. But the answer remains necessary. We are not going to be a contender until we start to have a plan on the back-end.

Next few drafts should be big. I think we should get a 1st for Nyquist this year, next TDL we have Green, Ericsson, and Daley to put on the market. We should be able to pull in a lot of top half of the draft picks. We should be looking at hauling in a lot of talent to either bulk out the team or to bulk out a trade.

I think part of the problem is that folks are underestimating how many years we're looking at being bad to mediocre and drafting high.

But do we think we're going to find our top pairing with 2nds and 3rds? I guess I don't. And in the same vein, I don't think we're going to land a top pairing defensemen by trading excess wingers.

I think we have to find a top pair quality D there. How many top teams haven't had to find top end guys in those rounds? If we can't find a 20+ minute guy or two in the second or third rounds, we're not going far regardless.

Also, frankly, we have some time on our side. Mantha is the oldest "core" prospect we have...at 23. Larkin, Cholo, Hronek, Rasmussen, Zadina...all 21 or younger right now.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,843
8,566
So I can assume you’ve never once complained that the Wings passed on a player in the draft who ended up being really good? Right? Because as you say, things that happen after the draft play a part in the outcome. Just want to make sure you’re being intellectually honest here.

I never said drafting more balanced would be a detriment. Forgive me for not being upset about missing out on a bunch of Joe Morrows over the years though.
Specifically, I don't think Filip Zadina will have a noticeably better NHL career with the Detroit Red Wings than Noah Dobson will have with the New York Islanders. Neither will be a Joe Morrow - one will likely be a first line winger, while the other will likely be a top pair defenseman. And I'd rather have the defenseman.

BPA makes sense by itself when one guy is head and shoulders better than another. But when a group of players are all nearly the same - and that's TSN talking on draft day, not just me - I'll take the SLIGHTLY lower rated guy who fills a bigger need.

But the larger issue is that the Wings seem content to keep going BPA forever, then expect a surplus of forwards to net them at least one great blue liner. And that's not a market that works in your favor. Really, the only way that makes sense is if you already have your contending roster nearly ready to go, and that one piece gives you a final push. Otherwise, it's likely to be a Mantha for a Vaatanen type deal, which I don't see Detroit excited to make.
 
Last edited:

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
I think we have to find a top pair quality D there. How many top teams haven't had to find top end guys in those rounds? If we can't find a 20+ minute guy or two in the second or third rounds, we're not going far regardless.

Rather do what Columbus did -- draft someone in the top 10 and/or trade for a promising young defenseman with a team overloaded on defense. Much more viable plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkutswings

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
um, we don't exactly have a lot of high end talent on our NHL roster, and we're not really overflowing with blue chip prospects in our system. We have, arguably, two - Zadina and Rasmussen. And Rasmussen still has his share of doubts.

The draft is too much of a crapshoot to worry about having too many good forwards. Did I want a D this year? Yeah. Do I think Zadina is a better prospect than any of the D on the board? Yeah, and so I can't pass the guy up. Your GM starts getting cute with the draft and you see him picking a guy like Dylan McIlrath. Totally missing on a top10 pick is going to hurt this franchise more than having too many really good forwards.

I'm not talking about the Wings today. I'm talking about BPA as a long term strategy. If you go with it, you will, most likely, be overflowing with wingers and maybe-centers.

If we use a 100 point scale, just for clarity's sake, you should, absolutely, take a guy rated 95 over a guy rated 80. Every time. It's why, even though I really, really wanted a D this year, I was ecstatic to see Zadina fall. But, if you have two guys, one who's an 86 and one who's an 85, and the 86 plays the same position as the rest of your even slightly-above-average prospects, and the 85 plays a position you desperately need, taking the 86 'because BPA' isn't a successful strategy.

BPA is functional when you're terrible and need everything, or when you're good and need nothing (and are drafting low to boot). It leads to an unbalanced prospect pool in the NHL when you're drafting fairly high (but not #1 high).
 
  • Like
Reactions: waltdetroit

HisNoodliness

The Karate Kid and ASP Kai
Jun 29, 2014
3,652
2,022
Toronto
Totally acceptable, but Holland needs to find another way to address the defense then. His aversion to trades needs to go away.
This is a pretty important point. We can continue to go BPA every time, but we'll have to build a defense somehow. Tampa, for example, has drafted exactly 1 of their defenseman (Hedman tbf which makes the whole thing much easier but the point stands). They have a great defense though because Yzerman aggressively addressed it via trades. If Holland isn't willing to trade aggressively and isn't willing to draft D even if they're not quite the BPA... I don't know how this problem could ever get fixed. Sergachev was traded for Drouin, we could have outbid that with Mantha+. Would it hurt to lose him? Yes, but if we never give up anything of value to address our D, we'll never get any D of value.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
This is a pretty important point. We can continue to go BPA every time, but we'll have to build a defense somehow. Tampa, for example, has drafted exactly 1 of their defenseman (Hedman tbf which makes the whole thing much easier but the point stands). They have a great defense though because Yzerman aggressively addressed it via trades. If Holland isn't willing to trade aggressively and isn't willing to draft D even if they're not quite the BPA... I don't know how this problem could ever get fixed. Sergachev was traded for Drouin, we could have outbid that with Mantha+. Would it hurt to lose him? Yes, but if we never give up anything of value to address our D, we'll never get any D of value.

I guess it is possible that we keep drafting BPA (and assuming every BPA ends up being a forward), we would have an excess at that point. But Holland hasn't made a trade like that in almost 20 years, so I don't know if it'll happen.

I don't think we truly realize how bad our defense is. I'd argue we legitimately have zero offensive defensemen and no real puck moving defensemen. Green is barely a #6 defenseman on any good team.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,843
8,566
If we use a 100 point scale, just for clarity's sake, you should, absolutely, take a guy rated 95 over a guy rated 80. Every time. It's why, even though I really, really wanted a D this year, I was ecstatic to see Zadina fall.
I completely agree with your overall point, but I think this section is part of the reason there are some disagreements in certain instances.

I think Zadina vs Dobson was more like 90 vs 85, but if 95 and 80 are your ratings, I can understand the greater enthusiasm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: njx9

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Rather do what Columbus did -- draft someone in the top 10 and/or trade for a promising young defenseman with a team overloaded on defense. Much more viable plan.

We can, but where is the rest of our D coming from? I'm looking at Chicago, and where was Keith and Hjalmarsson drafted? Where was Letang drafted? Doughty was a 2nd overall, but Voynov was 2nd rounder and Martinez was grabbed in the 4th. That's what I mean by having to hit on some of those later round picks if we really want the rebuild to go somewhere.

I'm all for grabbing top D however and wherever we can, but looking around the league and the really good teams hit on a number of these guys outside of the first round.

I'm not talking about the Wings today. I'm talking about BPA as a long term strategy. If you go with it, you will, most likely, be overflowing with wingers and maybe-centers.

If we use a 100 point scale, just for clarity's sake, you should, absolutely, take a guy rated 95 over a guy rated 80. Every time. It's why, even though I really, really wanted a D this year, I was ecstatic to see Zadina fall. But, if you have two guys, one who's an 86 and one who's an 85, and the 86 plays the same position as the rest of your even slightly-above-average prospects, and the 85 plays a position you desperately need, taking the 86 'because BPA' isn't a successful strategy.

BPA is functional when you're terrible and need everything, or when you're good and need nothing (and are drafting low to boot). It leads to an unbalanced prospect pool in the NHL when you're drafting fairly high (but not #1 high).

I really just don't think this is a worry. At what point do you have too many great forwards? 5? 8? 10? So, we're talking eight years drafting in the top10, and only having wings pop up? And if you do get a bit of concentration in one area, you deal from that area.

I also don't buy into the framing of the evaluation into over all number grades. Walking into the draft, especially for the top picks, I'm betting the Wings know who they want and what order they want them, and they have that list for a reason. We can disagree with their reasons, we can say they might just be lousy at scouting D and aren't ranking them appropriately in relation to other talent, but think there's very little debate at the table, at that point in the draft.

I'm sorry if my response seems flippant or anything, but I just don't buy into this concern.

edit: something I keep trying to work into a reply somewhere but can't find the room/place is also where do we factor in where a likely first round pick compares with a likely second round pick. For instance, how far apart do we see Bouchard and McIsaac? Because I don't think there is that great of a gap there. Meanwhile, I think there was a much larger gap between Zadina and Veleno. If we're letting considerations other than BPA come into play, do we take into account the likelihood of grabbing a similar player later?
 
Last edited:

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
I really just don't think this is a worry. At what point do you have too many great forwards? 5? 8? 10? So, we're talking eight years drafting in the top10, and only having wings pop up? And if you do get a bit of concentration in one area, you deal from that area.

It's a roughly 70% chance that your pick, in the top 10, will be a forward. So it's hardly out of the question that drafting BPA could net you 10 wings in a decade, without a single alternate position. And there's not a single team in the league that's going to give you a top 2 D or a 1C for a non-elite winger.

Wait. Sorry, that's objectively untrue. But I think Bergevin is out of top 2 D prospects, now.

I also don't buy into the framing of the evaluation into over all number grades. Walking into the draft, especially for the top picks, I'm betting the Wings know who they want and what order they want them, and they have that list for a reason. We can disagree with their reasons, we can say they might just be lousy at scouting D and aren't ranking them appropriately in relation to other talent, but think there's very little debate at the table, at that point in the draft.

I mean, fine, but it's not really relevant how we stack the players together. The argument is in how they get stacked.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
We can, but where is the rest of our D coming from? I'm looking at Chicago, and where was Keith and Hjalmarsson drafted? Where was Letang drafted? Doughty was a 2nd overall, but Voynov was 2nd rounder and Martinez was grabbed in the 4th. That's what I mean by having to hit on some of those later round picks if we really want the rebuild to go somewhere.

I'm all for grabbing top D however and wherever we can, but looking around the league and the really good teams hit on a number of these guys outside of the first round.

Hronek, Cholowski, Lindstrom, McIsaac etc. are the guys likely to be "the rest of your D". The issue becomes when you are banking on those guys being "the guy". You are doing a lot of hoping at that point.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
Hronek, Cholowski, Lindstrom, McIsaac etc. are the guys likely to be "the rest of your D". The issue becomes when you are banking on those guys being "the guy". You are doing a lot of hoping at that point.

Recent SC Finalists have proved that you don't even need a 1D to be succesful.

Vegas defence? Pens defence without Letang at 2017, which did won the Cup? Etc.

Superb defences seems to be overrated because Tampa and Nashville didn't get any better results.

Salary cap creates parity, where superb offences overcome those needs and vise versa. Everybody has weaknesses, you just have to deal with them.

That's why I also think this problem of not drafting defence is also an overrated problem.

We could have drafted a good 2D-6D group already and there seems to be great defencemen on the market all the time. McDonagh was traded, Karlsson will be traded, Seth Jomes was traded.

The proof is there, happening. And people in here are telling lies that nobody ever trades a 1D.

Jones trade happened exactly that way, if you keep drafting a surplus of skill forwards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Recent SC Finalists have proved that you don't even need a 1D to be succesful.

Vegas defence? Pens defence without Letang at 2017, which did won the Cup? Etc.

Superb defences seems to be overrated because Tampa and Nashville didn't get any better results.

Salary cap creates parity, where superb offences overcome those needs and vise versa. Everybody has weaknesses, you just have to deal with them.

That's why I also think this problem of not drafting defence is also an overrated problem.

We could have drafted a good 2D-6D group already and there seems to be great defencemen on the market all the time. McDonagh was traded, Karlsson will be traded, Seth Jomes was traded.

The proof is there, happening. And people in here are telling lies that nobody ever trades a 1D.

Jones trade happened exactly that way, if you keep drafting a surplus of skill forwards.

OK, needing a #1 D to win a cup is a myth. But what about having an actual good defense? Vegas is one of a kind, John Carlson had a Norris type season. When Letang was out Justin Schultz had 51 points.

The last time the Wings had a 50 point defenseman was 10 years ago. You can gloss over the need of an elite defense, but having a competent defense is required, yes? Unless you think this team can win with one of the worst defenses in the league I don't get your point.

Is the defense not a concern of your at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Recent SC Finalists have proved that you don't even need a 1D to be succesful.

Vegas defence? Pens defence without Letang at 2017, which did won the Cup? Etc.

Superb defences seems to be overrated because Tampa and Nashville didn't get any better results.

Salary cap creates parity, where superb offences overcome those needs and vise versa. Everybody has weaknesses, you just have to deal with them.

That's why I also think this problem of not drafting defence is also an overrated problem.

We could have drafted a good 2D-6D group already and there seems to be great defencemen on the market all the time. McDonagh was traded, Karlsson will be traded, Seth Jomes was traded.

The proof is there, happening. And people in here are telling lies that nobody ever trades a 1D.

Jones trade happened exactly that way, if you keep drafting a surplus of skill forwards.

1) Our current GM does not make trades like that. We don't even know who our next GM will be yet.
2) STOP USING PITTSBURGH AS AN EXAMPLE. Having players like Crosby and Malkin allows you to get away with things other teams can't. We will not have that privilege.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,843
8,566
So Detroit can completely scrap the need for a top-flight defenseman.

They just need to either have the best expansion draft in modern sports history, or draft two of the top 10 centers in the game.

Is it mathematically POSSIBLE? Yes. But why on earth would you want to head down that road, when the alternatives are statistically even more difficult to accomplish?

And even if there WEREN'T a huge difference between the likelihood of the many options...why hang your hat on it? Even if the next few drafts continue to have forwards that are "significantly higher on their board" fall to them, it's not a case of AIMING for that strategy; it's taking what falls to you. And that's under the (not insignificant) assumption that guys like Hronek and Cholowski continue to progress, and don't become the next Kindl and Sproul.

For the sake of argument, let's temporarily assume a stud blue liner is a luxury, but not a need. I'm not any less interested in trying to land that luxury, because that particular piece makes everybody's job a whole lot easier. Do I reach for every potential good defenseman I think I see, with crazy bust rates that hurt me long term? No. But I'm in no hurry to continue this pattern of using nearly all the high picks on forwards, either. Mix it up...trade a guy, move up or down in the draft if there's a good prospect to get, consider an RFA offer sheet...throw some spice in this recipe, to at least exhaust all the avenues of getting better players.
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,697
Recent SC Finalists have proved that you don't even need a 1D to be succesful.

Vegas defence? Pens defence without Letang at 2017, which did won the Cup? Etc.

Superb defences seems to be overrated because Tampa and Nashville didn't get any better results.

Salary cap creates parity, where superb offences overcome those needs and vise versa. Everybody has weaknesses, you just have to deal with them.

That's why I also think this problem of not drafting defence is also an overrated problem.

We could have drafted a good 2D-6D group already and there seems to be great defencemen on the market all the time. McDonagh was traded, Karlsson will be traded, Seth Jomes was traded.

The proof is there, happening. And people in here are telling lies that nobody ever trades a 1D.

Jones trade happened exactly that way, if you keep drafting a surplus of skill forwards.


Who exactly was Seth Jones traded for? Karlsson is a pending UFA. Even if you manage to trade for him, you still need to worry about re-signing him (something that is beyond your unilateral control).

Again, no one is going to trade us an elite defensemen for something we can afford to give up. The trade market will always favor teams trying to move defensemen and centers. The best we can hope for with your strategy is to trade established NHL players for defensive prospects who have not yet hit the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
I guess it is possible that we keep drafting BPA (and assuming every BPA ends up being a forward), we would have an excess at that point. But Holland hasn't made a trade like that in almost 20 years, so I don't know if it'll happen.

I don't think we truly realize how bad our defense is. I'd argue we legitimately have zero offensive defensemen and no real puck moving defensemen. Green is barely a #6 defenseman on any good team.

I'm not too worried about the defense where it is right now, the Wings aren't going anywhere for at minimum a few more seasons so who cares? The defense is going to look a lot different after 2 more seasons. Kronwall, Ericsson, and Green will all be gone. Just getting rid of Kronwall and Ericsson and replacing them with players who can actually skate will be a big improvement.
 

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
OK, needing a #1 D to win a cup is a myth. But what about having an actual good defense? Vegas is one of a kind, John Carlson had a Norris type season. When Letang was out Justin Schultz had 51 points.

The last time the Wings had a 50 point defenseman was 10 years ago. You can gloss over the need of an elite defense, but having a competent defense is required, yes? Unless you think this team can win with one of the worst defenses in the league I don't get your point.

Is the defense not a concern of your at all?

Justin Schultz may have had 50 points but he's not that good. He put up 50 points because the Penguins have a great offense, with or without Schultz. If the Red Wings draft a bunch of great forwards/centers they will score a bunch of goals and someone on the defense will have 40-50 points, even if they truly aren't that good.....ala Schultz.

Maybe this is why i'm not as worried as everyone else around here. Build a skilled/young/great forward group and "good" defensemen will come.
 
Last edited:

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
I'm not too worried about the defense where it is right now, the Wings aren't going anywhere for at minimum a few more seasons so who cares? The defense is going to look a lot different after 2 more seasons. Kronwall, Ericsson, and Green will all be gone. Just getting rid of Kronwall and Ericsson and replacing them with players who can actually skate will be a big improvement.

I think it matters because I don't want to get into a situation where the Wings fix their forward group and then we're way behind on defense. Obviously if Cholo or Hrnoek are the real deal we're in great shape, but if they are garbage to mediocre like the rest of the defense we've drafted over the past 20 years, then what?

I understand a lot can change in the next two seasons, but I'd like to see an effort to address the defense in some fashion before we have to prolong the rebuild because the defense was neglected so heavily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: njx9

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Justin Schultz may have had 50 points but he's not that good. He put up 50 points because the Penguins have a great offense, with or without Schultz. If the Red Wings draft a bunch of great forwards/centers they will score a bunch of goals and someone on the defense will have 40-50 points, even if they truly aren't that good.....ala Schultz.

Schultz was known as an offensive defensemen, even when he didn't produce. Really good offensive teams don't just manufacture 50 point defensemen out of nowhere.
 

obey86

Registered User
Jun 9, 2009
8,013
1,274
Schultz was known as an offensive defensemen, even when he didn't produce. Really good offensive teams don't just manufacture 50 point defensemen out of nowhere.

Yes, Justin Schultz was known as a offensive defensemen much more than a defensive guy but he's not and has never been 51 point good. His career high outside of that one crazy season was 33 points. In the 126 combined games from the season before and the season after his 51 point campaign he had a total of 45 points in 126 games (29 points/82 games). That's a better indicator of the caliber of player he is than his 51 point season.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Schultz was known as an offensive defensemen, even when he didn't produce. Really good offensive teams don't just manufacture 50 point defensemen out of nowhere.

They did it with Niskanen too.

But again, no clue why we are thinking we can be another Pittsburgh. That just needs to stop. They have a guy with the 6th best ppg EVER and 14th best ppg EVER on the same team at the same time. Their 3rd best forward would be the best forward on our team by a big gap. We are not going to be able to do what they are currently doing, so it is absurd to think we can get away with building a team in a similar fashion on the back end.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Yeah, we will never be anything good.

So be it.

You are really missing my point.

All I am saying is Pittsburgh is the unicorn in the league. The changes to the lottery and infrequency with which players like Crosby and Malkin come along makes it so they are unique and not replicable.

We can be good, we are just going to have to go about it a different way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->