Corey Pronman Reviews the 2017 Draft

[MBH]

I just see people complaining about everything too much. Everyone's expectations are unreasonable. People are expecting every pick to be a home run, and the speak like anything that isn't is a strike out. Maybe its just my frustration at the lack of reasonable perspective.

I mean I understand discussion, and disappointment. Zadina was high enough to be slightly disappointing. But I do not think anyone else is. Expecting a Schiefele at #9 would be a home run, it shouldn't be an expectation.
Currently 2017 draft sucks pretty big. I don't see anyone we could have picked that anyone would have been happy with.

Dude, there was lots of talent in the 2017 draft.
That draft was a dud before the paper was dry. Wright's comments in the aftermath told us everything we needed to know.

 

[MBH]

What makes you think he is a 2nd liner? He ain't no Larkin

Depends where he plays.
If the Red Wings keep him at C - I don't know if he'll even be a good 3C.
But if he's a winger, I can see him playing top line minutes, top PP minutes and playing that JVR game.

 

[MBH]

The worst recent draft done by the Red Wings.

Rasmussen: Might never live up to #9, but should be good.
Lindstrom: Might get a few cups of coffee
Kotkansalo: Not sure. I think he might be better than Lindstrom, but moving him to forward makes me wonder.
Zablocki: BUST
Gallant: BUST (might not have been a bad pick
Petruzzeli: Not sure - but nobody talks about him like they did.
Setkov: Likely bust
Fraser: Likely bust
Adams: Soon to be 23. Don't see much hope here.
Webb: Bust
Gilmour: Bust.

What was amazing about this draft was how many guys were complete busts within two years.
How many guys simply didn't get better.

If you go to the 2016 draft we picked 20th overall and had 7 picks.
3 of them were signed within two years and a fourth guy was a lock.

In 2017, with 11 picks and better draft position, only two earned contracts and there is no lock for a third.

If you look at the 2018 draft, three guys are signed.
Berggren looks like a lock.
OK that's fine. That's 4 guys in the top 35.
But it's the other guys... Regula, Barton, Kivenmaki, Brattstrom, Eliasson ... every guy except maybe O'Reilly has done enough to stay in the hunt for a contract.

WHen you look at 2019 - it's still early. But Seider is seigned. Tuo, yes, playing in a shit league, has opened eyes. Mastro, Johnasson, Grewe and phillips have been good. Soderblom has been good. Berglund and Tyutyayev have taken steps forward.

By this time in 2017, we were already seeing many of our 2017 prospects failing, stagnating or regressing.

 

[Ricelund]

Wright's comments in the aftermath told us everything we needed to know.

Which comments are you referring to?

 

[MBH]

Which comments are you referring to?

But it’s hard to look at the Red Wings 2017 draft class and say it fits that identity of skill and speed, the foundation on which the Red Wings championship teams were built. There was a lot of size, character and players who compete. Wright explained the reason why.
“When the Penguins come in and go small, with speed and no one can catch them, everyone tries to play catch up,” Wright said, defending the 2017 draft. “Where is the NHL going? We’re on the other side of that. We’re trying to be trend setters.”

 

[Frk It]

We want impact players but still need to be realistic about the returns of singular picks. If we have 10 picks in the top 10, with an average draft position of ~5 to make things simple, how many impact players would you expect, how many decent/good players and how many outright busts?

I can answer, but it seems like a self-defeating argument to me. Because how do we be realistic about our odds, but maintain that pulling off this rebuild is doable?

This is what the 4-5 slot yielded from 1998-2011 (for just forwards)
0-.19 PPG = 0%
.20-.39 PPG = 12%
.40-.59 PPG = 35%
.60-.79 PPG = 41%
.80-.99 PPG = 12%
1.00 PPG+ = 0%

So to answer your question, I would expect something like:
Impact - 1-2
Good/Decent-4-5
Bust - 2-3

With 10 picks at the #5 selection over 10 drafts.

 

[BinCookin]

I can answer, but it seems like a self-defeating argument to me. Because how do we be realistic about our odds, but maintain that pulling off this rebuild is doable?

This is what the 4-5 slot yielded from 1998-2011 (for just forwards)
0-.19 PPG = 0%
.20-.39 PPG = 12%
.40-.59 PPG = 35%
.60-.79 PPG = 41%
.80-.99 PPG = 12%
1.00 PPG+ = 0%

So to answer your question, I would expect something like:
Impact - 1-2
Good/Decent-4-5
Bust - 2-3

With 10 picks at the #5 selection over 10 drafts.

This post should really be read 2-3 times closely. Everyone expecting all our top 10 picks to be in that 12% range is what I'm talking about. Unrealistic. Realistically, we are going to need some luck, and Great drafting, to speed things up... Average drafting, we may have some real issues improving.... Kinda like Minnesota.

 

[Winger98]

By this time in 2017, we were already seeing many of our 2017 prospects failing, stagnating or regressing.

Yeah, that 2017 draft was just rough. Even if they were trying to push in a different direction from the small/speedy thing and looking for more size, they picked guys who even at the time seemed like pretty limited players. Might also have just been a weak draft as a whole.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I can answer, but it seems like a self-defeating argument to me. Because how do we be realistic about our odds, but maintain that pulling off this rebuild is doable?

This is what the 4-5 slot yielded from 1998-2011 (for just forwards)
0-.19 PPG = 0%
.20-.39 PPG = 12%
.40-.59 PPG = 35%
.60-.79 PPG = 41%
.80-.99 PPG = 12%
1.00 PPG+ = 0%

So to answer your question, I would expect something like:
Impact - 1-2
Good/Decent-4-5
Bust - 2-3

With 10 picks at the #5 selection over 10 drafts.

I would agree with you.

So if we say 5 picks in the top 10 as the fastest possible rebuild (17, 18, 19, 20, 21), in a perfect world we can avoid the bust territory for any picks and get maybe 3-4 good players and 1-2 impact players. I think that's a doable rebuild without being unrealistic and thinking every high draft pick needs to be a star.

 

[Frk It]

I would agree with you.

So if we say 5 picks in the top 10 as the fastest possible rebuild (17, 18, 19, 20, 21), in a perfect world we can avoid the bust territory for any picks and get maybe 3-4 good players and 1-2 impact players. I think that's a doable rebuild without being unrealistic and thinking every high draft pick needs to be a star.

That could be plausible. Ambitious, but doable.

I think a top 4 pick in this upcoming draft has a pretty good shot at bringing an impact player.

 

[Red Stanley]

I would agree with you.

So if we say 5 picks in the top 10 as the fastest possible rebuild (17, 18, 19, 20, 21), in a perfect world we can avoid the bust territory for any picks and get maybe 3-4 good players and 1-2 impact players. I think that's a doable rebuild without being unrealistic and thinking every high draft pick needs to be a star.

Rather than speaking of the odds in general, let's see what we have/what's available in that time frame:
'17 Ras - looks ok to decent so far, but too early to tell. Potential power forward center/wing. Other than that, Lindstrom has a shot. Rest of the draft class looks not so great.
'18 Zadina - looks promising so far, but too early to tell. Potential high scoring wing. Some other promising pieces from this draft class.
'19 Seider - looks very promising so far. Potential top pairing, two-way defenseman. Rest of the class has lots of potential. We'll have to wait and see.
'20 ??? - strong draft for the top 10. Potential franchise piece to be gotten here.
'21 ??? - shaping up to be another deep draft. Too early to tell what we'll get here.

Looks like we'll have a much clearer picture after the '20 draft, which imo will make or break the chances of a 5-year rebuild.