Drafting defencemen on the First round

[Heaton]

Their team has improved where the Wings team got older and retired. The preds were in the finals two years ago and were a contender this year. The wings weren't contenders in any year since 2011.

 

[Claypool]

David Poile traded a 1st round pick for players such as Cody Franson, Ryan Hartman and Paul Gaustad.

This past draft, he only had four picks starting in the 4th round.

GM OF FOREVER LOL

 

[Heaton]

David Poile traded a 1st round pick for players such as Cody Franson, Ryan Hartman and Paul Gaustad.

This past draft, he only had four picks starting in the 4th round.

GM OF FOREVER LOL

And? Lot's of GMs make those types of trades at the deadline. Holland has many times.

 

[Heaton]

You can't criticize the Red Wings and at the same time praise Nashville for doing the same exact thing.

Sure, that's fair. But if you're going to defend Detroit for that, why are you criticizing Nashville? You're doing the exact same thing that you're complaining that I'm doing, just the opposite way.

 

[obey86]

They had a great regular season this year. Both the previous years they were worse than Wings 2015 though.


I don’t see a trend for Preds.

2011: 5th
2012: 4th
2013: 13th
2014: 10th
2015: 3rd
2016: 7th
2017: 8th
2018: 1st

What is the trend?

Look at 2013-2016, the Preds finished 13th, 10th, 3rd, and 7th in their conference. That’s two nears of non playoffs and then a 1st and 2nd round exit. Can you imagine if that was a 4 season stretch by the Red Wings? Most people on this message board would have been asking the team to trade everyone and start tanking because obviously the team wasn’t good enough to make a legit playoff run.

Even the following year, 2017, when they went to the cup finals and lost it was more flukey than anything, as they barely even made the playoffs, finishing 8th in the conference. At the 2017 trade deadline (prior to their cup run), with the team barely in the playoffs and given their past 4 seasons in entirety, Wings fans would have been hoping the GM traded their roster players at the deadline for draft picks in hopes of tanking for a higher pick. Can you imagine? Lol. Because that’s exactly what most of the message board would have wanted done.

Miss playoffs, miss playoffs, 1st round exit, 2nd round exit, and then in year 5 sitting on the playoff bubble at the trade deadline.... why would the team not trade everyone, start tanking, and just start over? The team was just a bubble team, no upward trend over multiple previous years, they should have started over. Am I right?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Look at 2013-2016, the Preds finished 13th, 10th, 3rd, and 7th in their conference. That’s two nears of non playoffs and then a 1st and 2nd round exit. Can you imagine if that was a 4 season stretch by the Red Wings? Most people on this message board would have been asking the team to trade everyone and start tanking because obviously the team wasn’t good enough to make a legit playoff run.

Even the following year, 2017, when they went to the cup finals and lost it was more flukey than anything, as they barely even made the playoffs, finishing 8th in the conference. At the 2017 trade deadline (prior to their cup run), with the team barely in the playoffs and given their past 4 seasons in entirety, Wings fans would have been hoping the GM traded their roster players at the deadline for draft picks in hopes of tanking for a higher pick. Can you imagine? Lol. Because that’s exactly what most of the message board would have wanted done.

Miss playoffs, miss playoffs, 1st round exit, 2nd round exit, and then in year 5 sitting on the playoff bubble at the trade deadline.... why would the team not trade everyone, start tanking, and just start over? The team was just a bubble team, no upward trend over multiple previous years, they should have started over. Am I right?

That is good in a vacuum, and I have said I think people are overly harsh around here.

But we aren't looking at Josi, Ekholm and Ellis all in the lineup either. Trading for centers and get other things when you have legit prime core players is a bit different. I don't think you can dismantle, but I keep hoping we see some signs this year so people at least talk about the kids and the future a little more like Nashville could say back then. We have some parts but we need more..... We need to get back there that is absolutely true but it will be a process and it was awfully hard to avoid no matter how talented a front office as we had, it did have to happen eventually.

 

[Winger98]

Won’t be surprised if Preds fall off the radar soon. Subban trade wouldn’t be out of the blue. Weber could retire and give them recapture penalty. Saaros is definitely no Rinne replacement, not yet anyway. Their window is now, IF Rinne keeps playing at a high level. Otherwise they could be done.

Looking at the age of their roster, how long they're locked in, I don't see how they're close to being done. If you're saying now meaning through the next four years or so, yeah, I can see that. now, as in this season, I'm just not seeing it.

 

[kliq]

Sure, that's fair. But if you're going to defend Detroit for that, why are you criticizing Nashville? You're doing the exact same thing that you're complaining that I'm doing, just the opposite way.

Not to speak for anyone, but I think he is trying to point out that people tend to have recency bias when assessing GM's.

Since Nashville is a team on the rise, mistakes made by Poile are overlooked by some, and since Detroit has been on decline for years, some people rip into every single thing Holland does.

Either way, I think Poile is a great GM, and does deserve a lot of respect for what he has done with the Preds.

When I assess a GM, I try to evaluate each move without letting bias influence my assessment. When Holland does something dumb (Abby/Helm/Nielsen deals etc.) I will point it out. When Holland makes a good move (Tatar deal, Smith deal, Zadina pick etc.) I will praise him. With so many fans, its either "he sucks!" or "he's great!"

We are in a world where people love to be over the top. I guess people are more likely to feel heard when they are screaming opposed to simply giving a logical point.

 

[Heaton]

Not to speak for anyone, but I think he is trying to point out that people tend to have recency bias when assessing GM's.

Since Nashville is a team on the rise, mistakes made by Poile are overlooked by some, and since Detroit has been on decline for years, some people rip into every single thing Holland does.

Either way, I think Poile is a great GM, and does deserve a lot of respect for what he has done with the Preds.

When I assess a GM, I try to evaluate each move without letting bias influence my assessment. When Holland does something dumb (Abby/Helm/Nielsen deals etc.) I will point it out. When Holland makes a good move (Tatar deal, Smith deal, Zadina pick etc.) I will praise him. With so many fans, its either "he sucks!" or "he's great!"

We are in a world where people love to be over the top. I guess people are more likely to feel heard when they are screaming opposed to simply giving a logical point.

But I think most people do what you are doing, including myself. When the Wings were on top and Holland was making great decisions, the majority of people supported him. When all of his talent left or retired his bad mistakes are more magnified, as they should be.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being critical when the bar was set too high. But I DO think there's a problem with being being overly contrarian just because they don't like someone else's point of view and feel the need to over compensate. Not saying that's what you personally are doing.

I still believe Holland and his rebuild hinges on the defense. If Cholo or Hronek are elite in any way way, he'll be vindicated. If not we're in trouble.

 

[kliq]

But I think most people do what you are doing, including myself. When the Wings were on top and Holland was making great decisions, the majority of people supported him. When all of his talent left or retired his bad mistakes are more magnified, as they should be.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being critical when the bar was set too high. But I DO think there's a problem with being being overly contrarian just because they don't like someone else's point of view and feel the need to over compensate. Not saying that's what you personally are doing.

I still believe Holland and his rebuild hinges on the defense. If Cholo or Hronek are elite in any way way, he'll be vindicated. If not we're in trouble.

I don't know about "most", I think more people are over the top then rationale when it comes to sports in general. The problem is people have such an emotional tie to their teams, its really hard for them to evaluate without bias.

I agree with most of what you said though, especially the part regarding D. There is no doubt that acquiring elite (or even top 4) D has been Hollands biggest shortcoming in the past decade and a half. Hopefully the Datsyuk trade ends up being the franchises saving grace, or at least one of them becomes a top pairing guy, and we can acquire the other via trade or future draft.

 

[Henkka]

People have talked a lot how we need to draft our 1st defenceman in future drafts. I think this window has closed already.

First of all, next draft is a center draft. We are gonna be on that pick range (TOP5) where this becoming draft will give us a center as BPA with a very high pecentage. You can estimate it already. 2019 draft has that kind of players.

So it will be same type of draft like this 2018. We'll take forwards high, and defencemen later.

So the MESSAGE BOARD NEED for a high-drafted defenceman goes as far as 2020 draft. I don't really know who's there, don't know anything about that draft class yet like I know 2019 will be heavily center-weighted on top.

Those 2020 draft defencemen are 2002 born and will be in prime as 25-aged at earliest, so it happens in the year of 2027. That's 9 years away and our forward core will peak earlier.

THIS is the reason why Detroit Red Wings "Drafting-a-Defenceman-with-a-high-pick" -window is closed. Nothing prevents you drafting them lower like so far they have done. But cheap ELCs work only with forwards, when the team is rising. You get better value vs. caphit, when they are young. They help the team to win. But there's really no defencemen in this league, who plays on a contender with ELC. Because on ELC, defenceman is still on a learning process and they are losing games because of that. Those kind of teams are not contenders.

You have to think further like this when building a contender.

We will be better team sooner than these 2020 draftees would help, and this happens via trade or via free agency. Those are only options now, it's quite obvious.

Some defenceman will be traded, like they are on the trade market all the time. Hamonic was traded, McDonagh was traded, Vatanen was traded, Seth Jones was traded. The trades are there, happening all the time with various reasons. Others teams also have issues and trading a D away could be their answer. Just find the right match.

Erik Karlsson will move, Justin Faulk will move, Jacob Trouba rumours are flying in Winnipeg. They are going to cap hell after Laine+Wheeler -extensions and this could open defencemen trade possibility for Trouba.

These D trades are happening all the time. At some point, when Red Wings have enough other talent to give away, we will pull the trigger and get that defenceman.

Our kid forward core is now:

Mantha, 23 (peak 28)
Athanasiou, 23 (peak (28)
Bertuzzi, 23 (peak 28)
Larkin, 21 (peak 24)
Svechnikov, 21 (peak 28)
Zadina, 18 (peak 24)
Rasmussen, 19 (peak 25)
Berggren, 18 (peak 25)
2019 drafted Center, 17 (peak 23)

Tho guys career peaks are ~5-6 years away on average.

To match our defence for their career peaks, we should have a defenceman who is in prime on that time. It is somebody who is 28-29 aged on that time. That's when defencemen will peak.

Evan Bouchard would have been 25-year old. He could have been too young.

Cholowski is 20, and Hronek is 21. They are on right age on that time. 26-27 year old. Could be nice home-grown 2D-3D level of guys in a comittee defence.

But our 1st defenceman should be somebody, who was drafted in 2012-2013-2014 drafts.

2014 looks weak defenceman class. After Ekblad there's Montour, but nothing else so far.

2013 look a better draft, but nobody is there on a trade block at the moment.

2012 is interesting draft and first name what pops us is Jacob Trouba. He would be pefect age-fit to our forward core. Parayko same age class. I don't know is Parayko in any kind of trade block, but his name just popped up this summer.

These are the Defencemen we should target in the future years. 1-2 year older defencemen, than our average forward core, and they peak at same time.

Justin Faulk is 2010 drafted, would be 31-32 when our forward core will peak. Fits also on that timetable, not as good as Trouba/Parayko class, but still fits. Guys from 2010-2014 draft classes should be our targets.

Imo, we should really heavy go after Trouba. Get our Detroit-boy home, if he has hard time in Winnipeg.

Or why not Erik Karlsson, if he somehow end as UFA.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Looking at the age of their roster, how long they're locked in, I don't see how they're close to being done. If you're saying now meaning through the next four years or so, yeah, I can see that. now, as in this season, I'm just not seeing it.

Rinne is old. He is a key piece of that team. That and possible lockerroom issues would be the short-term problems I see.

 

[Killerjas]

Byram could be a defender we can snatch up with our top 5 pick next year. Honka could also be interesting, or Björnfot.

 

[iDangleDangle]

It’s because so many are so quick to dismiss everything the Wings did post-09 as garbage/waste of time/mediocre/etc. only to celebrate teams like Nashville for making it past the 2nd round once in their franchise history.


Won’t be surprised if Preds fall off the radar soon. Subban trade wouldn’t be out of the blue. Weber could retire and give them recapture penalty. Saaros is definitely no Rinne replacement, not yet anyway. Their window is now, IF Rinne keeps playing at a high level. Otherwise they could be done.

Having watched Saros closely since his junior years being a talent of my hometown team, I'd disagree. Saros is the more talented goalie with the better pedigree at hsi age, size not withstanding.

 

[jkutswings]

Not to speak for anyone, but I think he is trying to point out that people tend to have recency bias when assessing GM's.

Darn right.

What have you done for me lately. Being the greatest thing since sliced bread 15 years ago does absolutely nothing to entertain me right now. Even the greatest of minds can either continue to dance for me, or can move along and I'll find somebody else.

This isn't caring for an aging loved one, or cashing in rewards points in a loyalty club. It's, "Do I like watching the results on TV?" It's just a game, and if a given franchise is CURRENTLY* doing a poor job of assembling an entertaining product, then I don't care what they did before, I'm going to want them the hell outta town. Life's too short to "be patient" with something that's relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

*The last 3-5 years is my window of relevance. Anything older falls off the table.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Having watched Saros closely since his junior years being a talent of my hometown team, I'd disagree. Saros is the more talented goalie with the better pedigree at hsi age, size not withstanding.

Talented perhaps, but wouldn’t he be by far the smallest #1 goalie in the league? Like we know with Mrazek it’s one thing to kill it at lower levels and in a back-up type role, a different thing entirely to be a legit #1 workhorse.

 

[jkutswings]

Talented perhaps, but wouldn’t he be by far the smallest #1 goalie in the league? Like we know with Mrazek it’s one thing to kill it at lower levels and in a back-up type role, a different thing entirely to be a legit #1 workhorse.

Saros may or may not become a good NHL goalie. But any failings by Mrazek are due to technique, not size, so I wouldn't use him as a frame of reference.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Wait

Why is pronger not listed as a guy drafted 2nd overall?

That is what he was and why he was so damn good

Nobody and lets make this clear , nobody would tell holland to oasts on trading for doughty ans argue we shoukd inly draft dman

The only analysis that us acceptable is this, how many of the leagues top 50 dmen were drafted in the top 30 picks vs the last 180 picks and is the ratio 6:1?

If not then thats all the evidence one needs

 

[Pavels Dog]

Saros may or may not become a good NHL goalie. But any failings by Mrazek are due to technique, not size, so I wouldn't use him as a frame of reference.

More pointing out that I wouldn’t bet on a guy smoothly replacing a Vezina winner because he’s been good at lower levels and in limited NHL starts behind a stacked D.

 

[InjuredChoker]

More pointing out that I wouldn’t bet on a guy smoothly replacing a Vezina winner because he’s been good at lower levels and in limited NHL starts behind a stacked D.

rinne has had some very good highs but his lows (15-16, playoffs this year) have killed the preds.

saros' size scares me too rinne has had some major consistency issues since his hip issues 5 years ago. saros probably can't replace the vezina version but replacing the other version isn't that hard.

of course reasonable argument can be made that if they can't get vezina level goaltending, they aren't going to win.

 

[kliq]

Darn right.

What have you done for me lately. Being the greatest thing since sliced bread 15 years ago does absolutely nothing to entertain me right now. Even the greatest of minds can either continue to dance for me, or can move along and I'll find somebody else.

This isn't caring for an aging loved one, or cashing in rewards points in a loyalty club. It's, "Do I like watching the results on TV?" It's just a game, and if a given franchise is CURRENTLY* doing a poor job of assembling an entertaining product, then I don't care what they did before, I'm going to want them the hell outta town. Life's too short to "be patient" with something that's relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

*The last 3-5 years is my window of relevance. Anything older falls off the table.

Here is why I think this is flawed thinking. What if someone said to you that all they care about is the last 6 months (opposed to 3-5 years) and used that to argue that Holland is a great GM. You would say that is flawed and they could argue back literally the exact same thing saying "all I care about is what have you done lately". (well maybe not you lol, because if I remember correctly, you hated the Zadina pick). Everyone is going form their opinion based on a different period of time. Some may say last 15 years, some may say 10 years, some may say 5, some may say 1.

I understand I don't have a right to tell you what your personal criteria should be, we all have a right to base our opinions on what we want. Really, nobody is right or wrong with something like this, but I just think that when bias comes in to play, fans of any team become angry and sometimes begin to to change how they think in order to cling to a certain narrative. I also think fans cope better when then can blame failure on a single individual, as thinking "if we fire x, things will get better" "if we trade y, things will get better" is easier to handle, and I think for a lot of people Holland is who they chose for that.

If I really had to sum everything up, here is my very quick take. We attempted to re-build on the fly two times, the first was post Yzerman/Fedorov/Shanny etc. and it worked. The second was post Lidstrom, and it bombed. After the second attempt failed, we stuck with it and tried to hang on to the streak (mistake), then once that ended we began the re-build. There is no doubt that we could be farther along if we started earlier, and I wish we did, and along the way Holland made some bad moves (Abby, Helm, Nielsen are the first that come to mind). But with all that, the only thing I care about at this point, is do I think Holland can bring this team back to where it was, and I believe yes, and that is why I don't call for his head. I'm not an apologist, I don't think he has done nothing wrong, I just try to make my assessment based on his entire resume, not just a window.

Last thought; I do think this flawed logic (keeping the streak alive) was an organizational mistake that Holland was apart of which started with the Illitch's, an was not a Holland specific issue. In no world does a GM decide the overall direction of a team. Direction is decided by ownership, and then a GM follow's through on that vision. IMO it's no "coincidence" that both the Tigers and Wings started to re-build at almost the same time which also coincided with Chris Illitch fully taking over.

 

[Henkka]

Wait

Why is pronger not listed as a guy drafted 2nd overall?

That is what he was and why he was so damn good.

Because he was acquired with a trade, multiple times, when there was SC Final success. He never pan out on team which drafted him.

One legit proof, how there's a trade market for a defencemen, and drafting them is not so important. If you draft them, don't succeed with them and trade them, you can as well draft forwards, and trade them. Go with a BPA.

More you think of it, position really doesn't matter in drafting, if the most common way to address a defensive need in a winner is a trade for a 1st D. Just get talent for the trade.

 

[odin1981]

I think critic for the post 2009 wings is a little bit hyperbole. Most here would say (I assume) that we had a chance until around 2012. However post 2012 we have floundered around till last year. But the one thing that grinds my gears and ties into the thread is we are failing to address our defense. This past year in the draft was a rare one where there where 6 defenders commonly regarded as top 10 picks. To not pick one is frustrating because we as fans will be watching a team for a long while that is picking top 10 for at least 3-5 more years. And almost every year you can find a winger to pick.

Centers and defenders are the cream of the crop. They are what makes your franchise go around. And it is often tough to find really good ones outside the top 50 picks. Scouting has changed teams now know how to properly evaluate players better than in the past. Most top pair d trades require either another top pair d or a top line center. Would any of us as fans really want to see Larkin go in a trade? Because right know he is the only asset who could maybe fetch one. But he isn't a completely proven option because last year Z was still drawing the top line matchups and Dylan was on the 2nd line. He had 1st line production. But he still does have to prove he can prove his production against top line defenders.

 

[jkutswings]

Here is why I think this is flawed thinking. What if someone said to you that all they care about is the last 6 months (opposed to 3-5 years) and used that to argue that Holland is a great GM. You would say that is flawed and they could argue back literally the exact same thing saying "all I care about is what have you done lately". (well maybe not you lol, because if I remember correctly, you hated the Zadina pick). Everyone is going form their opinion based on a different period of time. Some may say last 15 years, some may say 10 years, some may say 5, some may say 1.

I understand I don't have a right to tell you what your personal criteria should be, we all have a right to base our opinions on what we want. Really, nobody is right or wrong with something like this, but I just think that when bias comes in to play, fans of any team become angry and sometimes begin to to change how they think in order to cling to a certain narrative. I also think fans cope better when then can blame failure on a single individual, as thinking "if we fire x, things will get better" "if we trade y, things will get better" is easier to handle, and I think for a lot of people Holland is who they chose for that.

If I really had to sum everything up, here is my very quick take. We attempted to re-build on the fly two times, the first was post Yzerman/Fedorov/Shanny etc. and it worked. The second was post Lidstrom, and it bombed. After the second attempt failed, we stuck with it and tried to hang on to the streak (mistake), then once that ended we began the re-build. There is no doubt that we could be farther along if we started earlier, and I wish we did, and along the way Holland made some bad moves (Abby, Helm, Nielsen are the first that come to mind). But with all that, the only thing I care about at this point, is do I think Holland can bring this team back to where it was, and I believe yes, and that is why I don't call for his head. I'm not an apologist, I don't think he has done nothing wrong, I just try to make my assessment based on his entire resume, not just a window.

Last thought; I do think this flawed logic (keeping the streak alive) was an organizational mistake that Holland was apart of which started with the Illitch's, an was not a Holland specific issue. In no world does a GM decide the overall direction of a team. Direction is decided by ownership, and then a GM follow's through on that vision. IMO it's no "coincidence" that both the Tigers and Wings started to re-build at almost the same time which also coincided with Chris Illitch fully taking over.

Agree with 99% of this, and it's a very sound overall approach.

I just hate Ken Holland's guts, so while I can acknowledge good moves on an intellectual level, and I do hope the team rebuilds successfully, he could win another Cup here, and I'd still want him gone on an emotional level.

 

[Claypool]

And? Lot's of GMs make those types of trades at the deadline. Holland has many times.

Yes, and Holland is a great GM, too.

Sure, that's fair. But if you're going to defend Detroit for that, why are you criticizing Nashville? You're doing the exact same thing that you're complaining that I'm doing, just the opposite way.

I'm not criticizing Nashville. I'm calling out the hypocrites here who love having double standards about what defines a successful organization.