Speculation: Who Should Detroit Pick at 4th?

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

Columbus on Sunday: a good example of the benefits of building from the blueline.

Columbus today: a good example of how hard it is to win games without possession drivers.

Frankly, the Wings need both players like Sanderson/Drysdale and players who project like Perfetti/Raymond/Rossi/Holtz do. I think passing on any of those guys, if you think that they're BPA at #4, is overthinking.

The Wings finished with 39! points in this (admittedly shortened) season. That is so goddamned bad lol, there is massive room for improvement in every part of the ice.

Drafting by position is a good tie-breaker. Otherwise, BPA please.

 

[newfy]

Taking yet another W with a premium pick is like putting gold plating on your oars while ignoring the fact that the bottom of your boat looks like a colander, if you're trying to actually build a decent team.

That said, I'm ultimately fine with whatever we do. Yzerman should figure out how he wants to build/fix the team and shouldn't feel bound to build around whatever garbage picks were made before he got here. I'm mostly assuming we're essentially starting over, and that it's unlikely the Manthas and Larkins of the team will be around the next time the Wings are even a little bit competitive.

Who makes the wings better right now, Marner or Dylan Strome? Your line of thinking ends up with that kind of draft screw up. Or woulda had you taking Turris over Kane back in the day. Better players make teams better, especially at the top of the draft where guys are more prjectable

 

[Orthodox Caveman]

It's going to feel disappointing if we don't end up with either Raymond or Perfetti.

 

[FMichael]

It's going to feel disappointing if we don't end up with either Raymond or Perfetti.

I''ll claim ignorance for the fact that I know little of the top 10 prospects other than what I've watched via YouTube.

That said - with the draft scheduled sometime in October - I personally feel indifferent as to whom we end up with.

 

[lilidk]

All this talks makes no sense to me until we see how kids are improving and we will see them just before the draft . I already saw Stutzle against u20 Switzerland, can't say he was great ,just alright

 

[YpsiWings]

It's going to feel disappointing if we don't end up with either Raymond or Perfetti.

This is where I am at too, feels like one of those two gives Detroit the biggest chance at an offensive difference maker that they so desperately need.

The fact that 99% of HF boards are convinced that the draft goes
1. Lafreniere 2. Byfield 3. Stutzle
gives me hope that it won’t. Can’t see Laf/Byfield dropping to 4, but Stutzle might.

 

[lidstromiscool]

What wingers? This team has next to zero prospect depth on the wing. Berggren has lost serious development time. Mastrosimone looks good, but he's not someone to hitch your cart to. And everyone else is a late round pick.

Or, what? Are we talking about future NHL star Givani Smith? The organization has already said they consider Rasmussen a center.

Wingers are actually a need on this team now. I'd argue defenseman are not. They've drafted a ton of D, now we have to let them develop. I'm not saying you ignore the position, but taking one with your first would be a sketchy idea. You can't win games -1 to 0.

And before someone says it, Mantha, Bertuzzi, etc do not fit our window. They are not long term solutions. So, we've got... Zadina, and that's about it.

I agree with this although Mantha and Bertuzzi do fit the Detroit window. You need some veterans on the team to go along with youth, you can't just have a team of all 27 and under players or you'll have no 'window.'

 

[MBH]

What wingers? This team has next to zero prospect depth on the wing. Berggren has lost serious development time. Mastrosimone looks good, but he's not someone to hitch your cart to. And everyone else is a late round pick.

Or, what? Are we talking about future NHL star Givani Smith? The organization has already said they consider Rasmussen a center.

Wingers are actually a need on this team now. I'd argue defenseman are not. They've drafted a ton of D, now we have to let them develop. I'm not saying you ignore the position, but taking one with your first would be a sketchy idea. You can't win games -1 to 0.

And before someone says it, Mantha, Bertuzzi, etc do not fit our window. They are not long term solutions. So, we've got... Zadina, and that's about it.

Mantha is 25.
Bert is 24.
Zadina is 20.
Fabbri 24
Svech 23.
Smith 22.

We have Mastrisimone and Berggren still coming.

 

[Winger98]

I agree with this although Mantha and Bertuzzi do fit the Detroit window. You need some veterans on the team to go along with youth, you can't just have a team of all 27 and under players or you'll have no 'window.'

To be the drivers of the team? Depends how far out you think the window begins. If we say five years, go through and add five years to Larkin, Fabbri, Zadina, Hronek, Cholowski, Rasmussen, and Veleno. Throw in some other guys like Lindstrom, McIsaac, and Tuomisto (sp?) and it's bunch of guys in that 24-29 age range. I wouldn't consider those rookies or kids. And this doesn't include other trades/signings to bring guys in from outside the org.

 

[njx9]

Who makes the wings better right now, Marner or Dylan Strome? Your line of thinking ends up with that kind of draft screw up. Or woulda had you taking Turris over Kane back in the day. Better players make teams better, especially at the top of the draft where guys are more prjectable

If the Wings have 8 all stars at Wing and 4 Luke Glendenings at C, Strome absolutely makes them better. Which ignores the idea that Raymond is Mitch Marner.

Again, I don't care who we pick or what position they play. This won't be a competitive team for significantly longer than anyone wants to admit, so BPA is a fine approach, and again, I want Yzerman to pick whoever will help him build the team without worrying about the fact that Holland's last several drafts were absolutely awful. I don't want Yzerman to avoid Raymond if he's truly the best possible player just because Rasmussen is a potential bottom 6 winger or because we have Givani Smith in GRR.

But pretending like you can ignore critical positions forever and that it won't matter because you can apparently just ice 6 wingers at all times is a massive, massive blind spot around here.

 

[Hen Kolland]

If the Wings have 8 all stars at Wing and 4 Luke Glendenings at C, Strome absolutely makes them better. Which ignores the idea that Raymond is Mitch Marner.

Again, I don't care who we pick or what position they play. This won't be a competitive team for significantly longer than anyone wants to admit, so BPA is a fine approach, and again, I want Yzerman to pick whoever will help him build the team without worrying about the fact that Holland's last several drafts were absolutely awful. I don't want Yzerman to avoid Raymond if he's truly the best possible player just because Rasmussen is a potential bottom 6 winger or because we have Givani Smith in GRR.

But pretending like you can ignore critical positions forever and that it won't matter because you can apparently just ice 6 wingers at all times is a massive, massive blind spot around here.

I'd take 8 all stars and 4 Luke Glendenings 100 times out of 100 before I take 7 all stars, 3 Luke Glendenings, and 1 Dylan Strome. Hell, I would even plug one of my 8 Marner all star wingers in at center on the first line because Marner already plays like center.

The sooner people can realize that forward can be "positionless" with competent two way wingers, the better. Especially ones like Marner, and yes, Raymond. They are going to drive offensive possession, and possess the two way qualities that are eerily similar to that of a traditional center.

 

[njx9]

I'd take 8 all stars and 4 Luke Glendenings 100 times out of 100 before I take 7 all stars, 3 Luke Glendenings, and 1 Dylan Strome.

Which, of course, wasn't actually the question and isn't responsive:

"If the Wings have 8 all stars at Wing and 4 Luke Glendenings at C"

And also acknowledges that I've ignored the fact that the team currently has 0 top pair D.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Which, of course, wasn't actually the question and isn't responsive:

"If the Wings have 8 all stars at Wing and 4 Luke Glendenings at C"

And also acknowledges that I've ignored the fact that the team currently has 0 top pair D.

Your fantasy scenario is pretty meaningless because no team has 8 all stars at wing, nor could they maintain 8 all stars at wing, but let's continue on. I've noticed you are avoiding saying Marner's name because it significantly cuts the legs off your argument because of how expansive the gap between he and Strome is, and that Marner is very talented as a two way player in addition to driving offense off the wing.

If I have 4 Glendening's and 8 Marner's and given the choice between adding another Marner or switching it up with a Strome, I'm still picking Marner. Hell, Mitch Marner is probably a better center while being listed as a wing than Strome is as a center, listed as a center.

The point being, pick the better players because they are better. Talent plays up in the NHL. Being extremely talented guarantees you a top 6 role in the NHL, whereas being a center might only guarantee you a job, but it may be a bottom 6 role. A la, Glendening, Ehn, Helm, Nielsen, etc.

And if you want to bring into the discussion the 0 top pairing D, who is a more impactful player, Marner or Hanifin? Marner or Provorov? Marner or Werenski? I'm going to assume you can see where this is going. The better player is still having a greater impact.

 

[SirloinUB]

I just want us to be able to look back and say “hey, we definitely got a player worthy of a top 4 pick.” I really don’t care what position they play.


This is our highest draft pick in ages. In theory, this should be our most talented player and arguably one of our most impactful players. I have no issue with adding a winger

 

[lilidk]

I just want us to be able to look back and say “hey, we definitely got a player worthy of a top 4 pick.” I really don’t care what position they play.

Or LA big mistake

 

[lidstromiscool]

To be the drivers of the team? Depends how far out you think the window begins. If we say five years, go through and add five years to Larkin, Fabbri, Zadina, Hronek, Cholowski, Rasmussen, and Veleno. Throw in some other guys like Lindstrom, McIsaac, and Tuomisto (sp?) and it's bunch of guys in that 24-29 age range. I wouldn't consider those rookies or kids. And this doesn't include other trades/signings to bring guys in from outside the org.

I don't see any problem with 30 year old Mantha being one of the drivers on the team. Out of that group, Larkin, Zadina, Hronek and maybe Veleno would be the only guys I am confident that will still be in the organization in 5 years. Every organization has players/prospects like Lindstrom, McIsaac and Tuomisto and while I do think one of them turns into a difference maker, I don't think we can count on it. Basically I am saying that we need to add elite gamebreaking talent at all positions. Currently I think Perfetti would be the best pick because I think he's the most talented after the big 3. If you think Sanderson/Lundell/Askarov are a better pick because they play Center or Defense, I disagree with you.

 

[Winger98]

I don't see any problem with 30 year old Mantha being one of the drivers on the team. Out of that group, Larkin, Zadina, Hronek and maybe Veleno would be the only guys I am confident that will still be in the organization in 5 years. Every organization has players/prospects like Lindstrom, McIsaac and Tuomisto and while I do think one of them turns into a difference maker, I don't think we can count on it. Basically I am saying that we need to add elite gamebreaking talent at all positions. Currently I think Perfetti would be the best pick because I think he's the most talented after the big 3. If you think Sanderson/Lundell/Askarov are a better pick because they play Center or Defense, I disagree with you.

In hockey, 30 is an age we regularly see guys start falling off. They might not be bad, but they certainly aren't the players they used to be. Mantha might still be able to be a contributor to a team when he is 30, but we're probably asking for trouble if we're expecting him to be one of the guys to regularly tilt the ice for us.

I don't disagree about needing elite talent, but that's also more in favor of seeing a guy like Mantha or Bert as someone we need to move because this team is still a long way from contending. That said, if we're trying to get elite talent, I don't think you can discard Askarov at 4th, either. People don't like the idea of taking goalies high for various reasons, but if we're talking about taking guys with the possibility (even likelihood) of being elite, that goalie is definitely in that conversation.

Right now, I'd lean Raymond/Perfetti/Askarov at 4th.

 

[Bench]

Right now, I'd lean Raymond/Perfetti/Askarov at 4th.

Obviously I have my favorite of the three, but I think all of them are smart choices. Askarov seems like the most sure bet to be a top player at his position, from my viewings, but I continue to understand the reluctance.

It's different to say, "I think Raymond will be elite" than "Never draft a goalie this high no matter what." I've always understood liking a skater more. I continue to not get ignoring elite goalie talent in favor of a magic bean you hope becomes a top line player.

Drysdale is hard to ignore, simply because you have a chance to grab the best defender of the draft (miss me with that Sanderson talk). While we can project our blueline as having too many right shots, that's hardly a guarantee, and being rich in blueline talent is a luxury that turns into an incredible position of trade strength.

 

[lidstromiscool]

In hockey, 30 is an age we regularly see guys start falling off. They might not be bad, but they certainly aren't the players they used to be. Mantha might still be able to be a contributor to a team when he is 30, but we're probably asking for trouble if we're expecting him to be one of the guys to regularly tilt the ice for us.

I don't disagree about needing elite talent, but that's also more in favor of seeing a guy like Mantha or Bert as someone we need to move because this team is still a long way from contending. That said, if we're trying to get elite talent, I don't think you can discard Askarov at 4th, either. People don't like the idea of taking goalies high for various reasons, but if we're talking about taking guys with the possibility (even likelihood) of being elite, that goalie is definitely in that conversation.

Right now, I'd lean Raymond/Perfetti/Askarov at 4th.

Exactly, I don't see Mantha being the best forward on the team when he's 30 or else our rebuild completely failed or he becomes a 100 point scorer or something. When the Wings are contending, I see him as a difference maker like Oshie was for Washington, not their top player but someone who can chip in and be a difference maker at times.
As for Askarov at 4th, I'd argue he is an elite talent and would be fine if that is what the scouts say also. But picking Askarov just because he's a goalie and the Wings need a goalie would be a mistake.

 

[njx9]

I've noticed you are avoiding saying Marner's name because it significantly cuts the legs off your argument because of how expansive the gap between he and Strome is, and that Marner is very talented as a two way player in addition to driving offense off the wing.

"Strome absolutely makes them better. Which ignores the idea that Raymond is Mitch Marner."

Come on. Why are you making wild accusations without simply reading my actual posts? You're now 2 for 2 on making up things I've said.

If I have 4 Glendening's and 8 Marner's and given the choice between adding another Marner or switching it up with a Strome, I'm still picking Marner. Hell, Mitch Marner is probably a better center while being listed as a wing than Strome is as a center, listed as a center.

Then the argument has shifted to "Marner can play C anyways, so it doesn't matter." Which, great. You've now drafted a C. Or you've moved one of your other Ws to C and still, really, aren't just drafting nothing but low-trade-value Ws.

The point being, pick the better players because they are better. Talent plays up in the NHL. Being extremely talented guarantees you a top 6 role in the NHL, whereas being a center might only guarantee you a job, but it may be a bottom 6 role. A la, Glendening, Ehn, Helm, Nielsen, etc.

Sure, but we're picking from about 6 really talented players. Are any of the guys projected at 4-10 *that* much better than anyone else? If so, why is this even a discussion? If not, and they're all roughly equivalent at an overall level, then why on earth wouldn't you take team need into consideration?

And if you want to bring into the discussion the 0 top pairing D, who is a more impactful player, Marner or Hanifin? Marner or Provorov? Marner or Werenski? I'm going to assume you can see where this is going. The better player is still having a greater impact.

I think it's wild that, no matter what, Mitch Marner is the comparable for all wingers, and lower tier players are the comps for everything else. Is Marner more impactful than Ottawa-era Karlsson? Brent Burns? John Carlson? Is he more impactful than Hasek or Roy or even Price?

Whatever. I've been clear and consistent that I don't care who Yzerman takes, or what position they play. He should move Mantha pretty quickly, and the team should start deciding if it thinks a mid-30s Larkin is still an additive player to whatever roster it's putting together for a 2028-ish team.

 

[newfy]

".
Or you've moved one of your other Ws to C and still, really, aren't just drafting nothing but low-trade-value Ws.

Sure, but we're picking from about 6 really talented players. Are any of the guys projected at 4-10 *that* much better than anyone else? If so, why is this even a discussion? If not, and they're all roughly equivalent at an overall level, then why on earth wouldn't you take team need into consideration?


I think it's wild that, no matter what, Mitch Marner is the comparable for all wingers, and lower tier players are the comps for everything else. Is Marner more impactful than Ottawa-era Karlsson? Brent Burns? John Carlson? Is he more impactful than Hasek or Roy or even Price?

1) Low trade value Ws? Do you think Marner or Strome have more trade value? Is Kucherov or Kane a low trade value winger? Would you trade Kyle Turris for Patty Kane?

2) I highly doubt NHL teams all consider 4-10 of equal talent.

3) Marner is a really recent 4th overall pick that was w inger that had a big center drafted ahead of him so hes the obvious and easy example of why you dont draft for need that high. You dont draft dmen at 4th overall just because your team is weak on D, or you end up with Juolevi instead of Tkachuk.

The point isnt what player it is (Marner vs whoever), the point is that you take the BPA because the team needs talent and dont worry about the position if theres a solid difference in talent

I would not be surprised at all given the talented wingers in this draft to see guys crying about not drafting Sanderson on this board but in the end it ends up like a Hanifin vs Marner situation. I know who I'm taking, even though Hanifin is a solid dman in the league. Theres some bad takes if you dig back on the toronto board at that point in time but loving it now.

I'm not even saying a guy like Raymond or Perfetti is for sure the BPA, but if a team deems that they are, theyre completely idiotic for notdrafting them because of position

 

[FMichael]

Taking yet another W with a premium pick is like putting gold plating on your oars while ignoring the fact that the bottom of your boat looks like a colander, if you're trying to actually build a decent team.

That said, I'm ultimately fine with whatever we do. Yzerman should figure out how he wants to build/fix the team and shouldn't feel bound to build around whatever garbage picks were made before he got here. I'm mostly assuming we're essentially starting over, and that it's unlikely the Manthas and Larkins of the team will be around the next time the Wings are even a little bit competitive.

Agreed.

At #4 we gotta go with the best player regardless of position...I'm Confident Stevie Y will make the right choice.

 

[Shultzyfeelinirie25]

i wonder what the chances are that drysdale goes 3rd to Ottowa and then they pick a winger/center with the 5th leaving the options of either byfield or stutzle on the table? Then who do you pick? whichever one LA doesnt but who would you rather have on the table out of those 2?

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

i wonder what the chances are that drysdale goes 3rd to Ottowa and then they pick a winger/center with the 5th leaving the options of either byfield or stutzle on the table? Then who do you pick? whichever one LA doesnt but who would you rather have on the table out of those 2?

I think there's a slim chance, but I highly doubt it. I think that Byfield is their guy if he's available, and if not then they'll look at Stutzle with Rossi mayyyybe as their #3 because of where he's played in junior.
I think they pick either Sanderson or Drysdale at 5 with the outside chance of the pick being Perfetti/Raymond/Holtz.

 

[Winger98]

Obviously I have my favorite of the three, but I think all of them are smart choices. Askarov seems like the most sure bet to be a top player at his position, from my viewings, but I continue to understand the reluctance.

It's different to say, "I think Raymond will be elite" than "Never draft a goalie this high no matter what." I've always understood liking a skater more. I continue to not get ignoring elite goalie talent in favor of a magic bean you hope becomes a top line player.

Drysdale is hard to ignore, simply because you have a chance to grab the best defender of the draft (miss me with that Sanderson talk). While we can project our blueline as having too many right shots, that's hardly a guarantee, and being rich in blueline talent is a luxury that turns into an incredible position of trade strength.

Especially when Drysdale is still going to be, what, three years away from joining the Wings and being a guy they can count on? Which would be right around the time Hronek is turning 25 and looking at a big contract that eats UFA years...hmmm...