Dennis Cholowski signs a 3 year EL Contract

[Heaton]

Well one of the reason these players didn't get the opportunity is because for the better part of the last 20 years we've had a good/great team with better players taking the opportunity. So yeah there's been an inability draft-wise, but 20 points isn't much to strive for. D-men that can score 20+ points are available in UFA and we've found them constantly (Dekeyser, Green, Rafalski, White, Stuart etc.). Nick Jensen could probably score 20 if he gets a little PP time and a few bounces.

Me talking about our defensemen not being able to score 20 points is to show how bad our drafting and development has been, it's not to say that 20 points is a good number.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

That's on you for making those assumptions. I've read a lot of negatives on here about Chychrun that seem reasonable to me, and it's not good argumentation to assume that someone disagreeing with you has ulterior motives like being an apologist.

I honestly think people are being way too modest about Cholowskis potential around here.

Either way, I think the way each player has developed already has at least justified the trade and the picks by each team enough that this comparison can be a fun easter egg to debate and track going forward.

I wasn't making assumptions. I was simply reading what people wrote. In a thread that wasn't even about Cholowski some people were building a case against Chychrun.

And it's not about disagreeing with me. I honestly have no feelings about Chychrun and don't care about his development since he's not on the Red Wings. But the exaggerations were obvious even to someone without a horse in the race.

I just find it funny that people feel the need to bag on a young player to justify one of Holland's moves when we're at least a few seasons away from knowing how any of the people involved turn out.

 

[Shaman464]

Surely the fact they didn't pick him at 46th suggests they had no intention of doing so, making your counter-argument far more disingenuous than any iteration of the actual argument, even if we ignore the fact that its incredibly unlikely that they pick dmen with both 1st and 2nd round picks without a second 2nd round pick, which they got from said trade, which then turned out to be Hronek. But then its pretty obvious that you are determined to never give the current wings regime any benefit of any doubt on any issue...

This is also a shit argument, that's like saying that had no intention of picking Datsyuk because they did it late. It seems that a lot of teams were sleeping on Hronek, and Detroit decided to gamble (which is was a massive mistake) on Smith.

 

[SCD]

Detroit decided to gamble (which is was a massive mistake) on Smith.

Any player taken after 40 is a gamble. Will Smith pan out, probably not. But, a gritty forward was one of their needs at that time.

It will be interesting to see what Smith does this year in GR against men.

 

[Pavels Dog]

This is also a **** argument, that's like saying that had no intention of picking Datsyuk because they did it late. It seems that a lot of teams were sleeping on Hronek, and Detroit decided to gamble (which is was a massive mistake) on Smith.

They wouldn’t have Hronek without trading for the extra 2nd round pick. That much is a fact.

 

[SCD]

drafting and development

It is really hard do completely separate two, and where most of the blame lies.

I am just glad that we have two new directors in Wright and Horcoff. It is way too early to grade what they have done here. Horcoff has made significant changes to the training programs. Let's just hope it makes a difference.

 

[Frk It]

I wasn't making assumptions. I was simply reading what people wrote. In a thread that wasn't even about Cholowski some people were building a case against Chychrun.

And it's not about disagreeing with me. I honestly have no feelings about Chychrun and don't care about his development since he's not on the Red Wings. But the exaggerations were obvious even to someone without a horse in the race.

I just find it funny that people feel the need to bag on a young player to justify one of Holland's moves when we're at least a few seasons away from knowing how any of the people involved turn out.

It came off to me like people were overcompensating super hard as well, so I get what you mean.

We have this rough dichotomy right now where people really wish we had taken certain players and then the opposition really magnifies the weaknesses of those same guys.

I’m hoping this last draft restores some faith so we’re not all going at each other’s throats as bad. Hopefully we get to see these young guys this year and our prospects track well, and we are a little more at ease going into this next draft.

 

[Shaman464]

They wouldn’t have Hronek without trading for the extra 2nd round pick. That much is a fact.

Prove it if its a fact.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Prove it if its a fact.

They drafted Smith ahead of Hronek. There.

Okay tbh maybe Hronek could have been available in the 4th round but it’s extremely unlikely.

 

[Shaman464]

They drafted Smith ahead of Hronek. There.

Okay tbh maybe Hronek could have been available in the 4th round but it’s extremely unlikely.

That means jackshit. Again that means the wings didn't want Pavel Datsuyk because they drafted Jake McCracken and Brent Hobday first. It is as likely that they had Hronek IDed for the 46th pick and picked Smith because he was still on the board and though it was more likely Smith would be and Hronek would still be there. All we have is speculation, therefore its not a proven fact.

 

[Henkka]

They drafted Smith ahead of Hronek. There.

Okay tbh maybe Hronek could have been available in the 4th round but it’s extremely unlikely.

Don't think so.

He was ranked Late 2nd/Early 3rd. Both Givani and Hronek were there, just depends of the viewpoint.

2016 BLUE BULLET DRAFT GUIDE

 

[lomekian]

This is also a **** argument, that's like saying that had no intention of picking Datsyuk because they did it late. It seems that a lot of teams were sleeping on Hronek, and Detroit decided to gamble (which is was a massive mistake) on Smith.

I now have no idea what point you are even trying to make. You are making an entirely false comparison based on a spectacular logic fallacy. If they intended to pick him at 46th, why didn't they? Given they had the option of picking him that high, but decided to do so with their extra pick later, makes it perfectly clear they didn't want to pick him at 46th.

All that matters is that they picked him where they did, and that looks as though it might have been a good pick. And lets not totally give up on Givani Smith. he had an excellent playoffs, and still has some potential to be an NHL-er

 

[Shaman464]

I now have no idea what point you are even trying to make. You are making an entirely false comparison based on a spectacular logic fallacy. If they intended to pick him at 46th, why didn't they? Given they had the option of picking him that high, but decided to do so with their extra pick later, makes it perfectly clear they didn't want to pick him at 46th.

All that matters is that they picked him where they did, and that looks as though it might have been a good pick. And lets not totally give up on Givani Smith. he had an excellent playoffs, and still has some potential to be an NHL-er

Because they probably wanted them both, had a pretty good idea who might be taken first, and rolled the dice. There is 0 way for you to say with any level of certainty that they would have taken Smith over Hronek if they only had one pick. And to say that no trade=no Hronek is a shit argument because it could just as likely be no trade=no smith which means that second second rounder pretty much squandered and therefore useless. My point is that the no trade=no Hronek argument should be dropped because there is no evidence that that is true and there is another equally plausible possibility.

 

[Dotter]

Because they probably wanted them both, had a pretty good idea who might be taken first, and rolled the dice. There is 0 way for you to say with any level of certainty that they would have taken Smith over Hronek if they only had one pick. And to say that no trade=no Hronek is a **** argument because it could just as likely be no trade=no smith which means that second second rounder pretty much squandered and therefore useless. My point is that the no trade=no Hronek argument should be dropped because there is no evidence that that is true and there is another equally plausible possibility.

They chose Hronek with AZI's 53rd pick from the Datsyuk trade. That is fact. I feel like the onus should be on you to prove the G.Smith vs Hrnoek conundrum you're trying to water down.

 

[Shaman464]

They chose Hronek with AZI's 53rd pick from the Datsyuk trade. That is fact. I feel like the onus should be on you to prove the G.Smith vs Hrnoek conundrum you're trying to water down.

Except that's not how argumentation works. The argument people are making is "If Detroit didn't trade for AZ's 2nd round pick they wouldn't have Hronek". I am not positing a positive claim of knowledge. I am saying that we don't know who they would have picked in that situation and those who claim they know, without giving evidence, are being disingenuous. So, actually it's you the onus is on you.

 

[Pavels Dog]

That means jack****. Again that means the wings didn't want Pavel Datsuyk because they drafted Jake McCracken and Brent Hobday first. It is as likely that they had Hronek IDed for the 46th pick and picked Smith because he was still on the board and though it was more likely Smith would be and Hronek would still be there. All we have is speculation, therefore its not a proven fact.

Except the Wings did want other players more than they wanted Datsyuk. Like Tampa wanted other players more than Brayden Point. Like Nashville wanted others more than Weber and Josi.

By and large, teams go down their lists. They don’t just wing it. If they had Hronek rated higher than Smith they would have taken him at 46. Saying differently just sounds like you don’t understand how teams draft.

 

[Shaman464]

Except the Wings did want other players more than they wanted Datsyuk. Like Tampa wanted other players more than Brayden Point. Like Nashville wanted others more than Weber and Josi.

By and large, teams go down their lists. They don’t just wing it. If they had Hronek rated higher than Smith they would have taken him at 46. Saying differently just sounds like you don’t understand how teams draft.

Actually it makes it seem like you don't understand the basic economic idea of opportunity cost. Basically by having the second pick they were able to pick someone like Smith who was much more of a niche player, one that doesn't fit their rebuild. Instead of risking losing out on Hronek if they wait until the third round, this allows them to lessen the risk of the missed opportunity. If they only had one pick, we don't know how they would have valued Smith and Hronek. Given that Smith always looked very likely to be a career AHLer, and Detroit's need for defense, its very much likely Detroit doesn't take the risk of losing the opportunity of drafting Hronek and would have hoped someone like Smith was available in the third round. But again, the only thing we both have is speculation. And I can give you examples until the cows come home about how having more of something allows you to make different decisions than when you have less of it. And in this case Detroit likely as not drafted Smith ahead of Hronek because of the extra pick. The same question can be asked this year between McIsaac and Berggren. If both are on the board and they only had one second rounder who would they have picked? Again, we can't know short of asking Holland, and I believe there is an argument either way.

 

[Claypool]

And in this case Detroit likely as not drafted Smith ahead of Hronek because of the extra pick. The same question can be asked this year between McIsaac and Berggren. If both are on the board and they only had one second rounder who would they have picked? Again, we can't know short of asking Holland, and I believe there is an argument either way.

The Red Wings already said they picked Berggren because he was too good to pass up and other teams were going to draft him. We can assume, then, if the Red Wings didn't have Ottawa's second-round pick Berggren gets pick by Montreal and the Red Wings still pick a defensemen with the #36 pick.

Your logic is backwards. If the Red Wings didn't get the draft pick for Datsyuk they still likely pick Smith. They probably had Hronek targeted in the later rounds and used the extra pick to get the guy they wanted sooner. Don't forget, they didn't have a 3rd round pick that draft.

It's the same reason they took Bertuzzi after Nastasiuk. They were probably targeting Bert in the later rounds but knew if they could get an extra pick they would take him earlier.

 

[lomekian]

Actually it makes it seem like you don't understand the basic economic idea of opportunity cost. Basically by having the second pick they were able to pick someone like Smith who was much more of a niche player, one that doesn't fit their rebuild. Instead of risking losing out on Hronek if they wait until the third round, this allows them to lessen the risk of the missed opportunity. If they only had one pick, we don't know how they would have valued Smith and Hronek. Given that Smith always looked very likely to be a career AHLer, and Detroit's need for defense, its very much likely Detroit doesn't take the risk of losing the opportunity of drafting Hronek and would have hoped someone like Smith was available in the third round. But again, the only thing we both have is speculation. And I can give you examples until the cows come home about how having more of something allows you to make different decisions than when you have less of it. And in this case Detroit likely as not drafted Smith ahead of Hronek because of the extra pick. The same question can be asked this year between McIsaac and Berggren. If both are on the board and they only had one second rounder who would they have picked? Again, we can't know short of asking Holland, and I believe there is an argument either way.

The primary problem with your argument is that it implies concrete knowledge of the intentions of others. If Hronek was the preferred option, why on earth would they make a decision that reduced the probability of them achieving their preference? Any team beteeen the two picks could have picked Hronek, and given that both he and Smith were ranked so similarly, it would be utterly illogical to select your less preferred option this putting at risk your preferred option, when there is no significant evidence to suggest that that preferred option would be less preferred by other involved parties.

Your assertion totally ignores logic or implies that DRW management ignores logic.

No sane person would reduce the likelihood of their first preference in order to achieve their second preference , which is similarly likely to be available at a subsequent opportunity.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Actually it makes it seem like you don't understand the basic economic idea of opportunity cost. Basically by having the second pick they were able to pick someone like Smith who was much more of a niche player, one that doesn't fit their rebuild. Instead of risking losing out on Hronek if they wait until the third round, this allows them to lessen the risk of the missed opportunity. If they only had one pick, we don't know how they would have valued Smith and Hronek. Given that Smith always looked very likely to be a career AHLer, and Detroit's need for defense, its very much likely Detroit doesn't take the risk of losing the opportunity of drafting Hronek and would have hoped someone like Smith was available in the third round. But again, the only thing we both have is speculation. And I can give you examples until the cows come home about how having more of something allows you to make different decisions than when you have less of it. And in this case Detroit likely as not drafted Smith ahead of Hronek because of the extra pick. The same question can be asked this year between McIsaac and Berggren. If both are on the board and they only had one second rounder who would they have picked? Again, we can't know short of asking Holland, and I believe there is an argument either way.

Positional need comes into play if your plan was to select a D at #6 but a forward falls to you, then a forward falls to you at #30 as well. Then maybe you need to adress D. In 2016? We took at D in the 1st. BPA would apply in the 2nd round. They deemed it to be Smith (this we know) and used the extra pick to grab another D. There are countless examples where extra picks ”save” teams from looking dumb, this and 2013 (Bertuzzi) are probably two such instances for us.

 

[jkutswings]

A very different set of rules, but an example in concept:

Say I'm drafting my fantasy football team. It's the 7th round, and I could either take my starting QB or yet another RB/WR. I'm drafting 11 out of 12 teams, so there is only one team (making 2 selections) in between my 7th and 8th round picks (in a serpentine draft).

Both a QB I want and a RB I want are available for my 7th round pick. And the team after me already has their starting QB.

Now individually, that QB is definitely higher on my priority list than the RB, and I value him much more than taking my 3rd or 4th RB. But if I have good reason to expect that the team(s) in between my picks will not take a QB, then I can take a calculated risk, select the RB in the 7th round, and expect the QB to still be there for my 8th pick, so that I end up with BOTH the guys I want.

Again, the NHL draft is a very different animal. I'm just saying that it's possible to value Player A more than Player B, yet still have a good reason to take Player B first, depending on the lay of the land (scarcity by position, needs of other teams, drop-off in talent to the next guy at said position, etc).

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

A very different set of rules, but an example in concept:

Say I'm drafting my fantasy football team. It's the 7th round, and I could either take my starting QB or yet another RB/WR. I'm drafting 11 out of 12 teams, so there is only one team (making 2 selections) in between my 7th and 8th round picks (in a serpentine draft).

Both a QB I want and a RB I want are available for my 7th round pick. And the team after me already has their starting QB.

Now individually, that QB is definitely higher on my priority list than the RB, and I value him much more than taking my 3rd or 4th RB. But if I have good reason to expect that the team(s) in between my picks will not take a QB, then I can take a calculated risk, select the RB in the 7th round, and expect the QB to still be there for my 8th pick, so that I end up with BOTH the guys I want.

Again, the NHL draft is a very different animal. I'm just saying that it's possible to value Player A more than Player B, yet still have a good reason to take Player B first, depending on the lay of the land (scarcity by position, needs of other teams, drop-off in talent to the next guy at said position, etc).

That's a fairly simple to understand example and it says it perfectly.

And frankly, I don't think it's that different. Sure, leagues don't do the snake draft, but you're still weighing whether a guy will be there or not when you make a pick.

Everyone lost their minds that the Detroit Lions didn't try to trade down before they took Ragnow at 20 this year. Trading down would probably have been the "smart" move because you get another asset when taking an internal lineman which 20 is kinda high for a guy in those spots. But if they traded behind Cincinnati, he was GONE. He wasn't making it past pick 21. Or when Holland traded from 18 back to 20 in the Mantha draft. He had a pretty damn good feeling that Columbus and San Jose weren't taking Mantha. If he was worried that they would, he makes the pick at 18.

Actually it makes it seem like you don't understand the basic economic idea of opportunity cost. Basically by having the second pick they were able to pick someone like Smith who was much more of a niche player, one that doesn't fit their rebuild. Instead of risking losing out on Hronek if they wait until the third round, this allows them to lessen the risk of the missed opportunity. If they only had one pick, we don't know how they would have valued Smith and Hronek. Given that Smith always looked very likely to be a career AHLer, and Detroit's need for defense, its very much likely Detroit doesn't take the risk of losing the opportunity of drafting Hronek and would have hoped someone like Smith was available in the third round. But again, the only thing we both have is speculation. And I can give you examples until the cows come home about how having more of something allows you to make different decisions than when you have less of it. And in this case Detroit likely as not drafted Smith ahead of Hronek because of the extra pick. The same question can be asked this year between McIsaac and Berggren. If both are on the board and they only had one second rounder who would they have picked? Again, we can't know short of asking Holland, and I believe there is an argument either way.

And? They had two picks. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this argument. I couldn't give a damn less who they would have picked with only one pick... because they had two. They made their choice knowing that they had two picks in that area for several months. It's not like the Jurco/Ouellet draft where they had a first rounder until the night of and dealt it during the draft for two 2nds. Also, how in the hell does G. Smith not fit their rebuild? Or rather, how does he fit it less than a guy like Veleno or Breggren or McIssac? A team that has to build from the ground up and learn how to win again needs a guy who is a son of a ***** to play against.

 

[newfy]

That's a fairly simple to understand example and it says it perfectly.

And frankly, I don't think it's that different. Sure, leagues don't do the snake draft, but you're still weighing whether a guy will be there or not when you make a pick.

Everyone lost their minds that the Detroit Lions didn't try to trade down before they took Ragnow at 20 this year. Trading down would probably have been the "smart" move because you get another asset when taking an internal lineman which 20 is kinda high for a guy in those spots. But if they traded behind Cincinnati, he was GONE. He wasn't making it past pick 21. Or when Holland traded from 18 back to 20 in the Mantha draft. He had a pretty damn good feeling that Columbus and San Jose weren't taking Mantha. If he was worried that they would, he makes the pick at 18.



And? They had two picks. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this argument. I couldn't give a damn less who they would have picked with only one pick... because they had two. They made their choice knowing that they had two picks in that area for several months. It's not like the Jurco/Ouellet draft where they had a first rounder until the night of and dealt it during the draft for two 2nds. Also, how in the hell does G. Smith not fit their rebuild? Or rather, how does he fit it less than a guy like Veleno or Breggren or McIssac? A team that has to build from the ground up and learn how to win again needs a guy who is a son of a ***** to play against.

The football comparison isnt a good one. Way too many positions and the age difference of the draft from NFL and NHL is way too big. Drafting for needs is always done in the NFL, rarely in the NHL.

I really think if Detroit thought Hronek was going to be the better player they would've taken him first, but they lukced out and got both players. We're not dealing in unknowns/unscouted players like a Datsyuk.

Smith was considered a late first/early second type prospect and arguably the toughest player in the draft. Hronek was the top ranked European dman in the draft. I highly doubt the wings were risking letting the top dman from Europe in the draft for 7 picks if they thought he was going to be better than Smith. In the second round of an NFL draft youre drafting a very likely starter and impact player around the 40th pick, in the NHL its a long shot so you go with whatever you think is best 5 or 6 years down the road. Most guys are out of the NFL 6 years down the road so the comparison being used here isnt a very good one

 

[Claypool]

I'm just saying that it's possible to value Player A more than Player B, yet still have a good reason to take Player B first

Yes, in the later rounds, if you believe a certain player maybe wasn't as scouted heavily, or maybe had an injury history that was scaring teams off, or could possibly go undrafted. I'm sure management were confident they could get Kivenmaki in the 7th round as opposed to drafting him higher than needed.

I would not apply this example to Hronek/Smith, however.

 

[SirloinUB]

It came off to me like people were overcompensating super hard.

We have this rough dichotomy right now where people really wish we had taken certain players and then the opposition really magnifies the weaknesses of those same guys.

This definitely happens both ways. Rasmussen’s even strength points was a hot button topic after his Draft. He did a good job silencing that concern but it was frequently discussed.

Also if we want to talk about magification of “weakness” and overcompensating Cholowski’s “baby face” was a flash point for some of the Holland haters.

Of course people will push back when they see these kind of critiques of players that other posters hadn’t even watched.

I agree with you though. It would be nice to see more civility and nuance applied to these conversations rather than pettiness and polarization.