News Article: Wings willing to move down from 6?

Orthodox Caveman

Registered User
Sep 12, 2006
617
195
Why draft a forward at #6? So we can get dragged back in to playoff fodder status and prolong purgatory while the defense is a tire fire?
 

Orthodox Caveman

Registered User
Sep 12, 2006
617
195
Why does drafting a forward make our team way better?

More immediate impact?

Just seems like adding Rasmussen and Tkachuk/Wahlstrom for example would drag this team upward prematurely assuming they make the team. I guess just make sure they stay down for a season or two?

We have some top right handed puck moving defenseman in it wheel house and the defense needs attention. We can draft a top center next year.
 

Ezekial

Cheap Pizza, Bad Hockey
Sponsor
Nov 22, 2015
22,379
14,884
Chicago
Just seems like adding Rasmussen and Tkachuk/Wahlstrom for example would drag this team upward prematurely assuming they make the team. I guess just make sure they stay down for a season or two?

We have some top right handed puck moving defenseman in it wheel house and the defense needs attention. We can draft a top center next year.
I think with the way this draft is and where will be drafting next year looks, yea I really think picking a D would be the best option. But, as I've said in the past, I honestly don't care which guy they get in the top 10. If Tkachuk were to fall to 6 and we grab him I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed. TZE basically read my mind with his post about him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickH8

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
Part of my obstinance against drafting a wing is that I doubt this regime will ever find a legit top pair defenseman by any means other than a top 10 draft pick. Hronek and Cholo might be good second pairing guys, and MAYBE even one day a 1B type player. But this team desperately needs somebody to really anchor the defense, and help slot other players down a notch where they belong, and I don't know if Detroit will ever find that guy unless he's very close to the top of the draft.

Take Dobson, or Bouchard, or whomever you think is your future #1/#2 blue liner. The priority is absolutely that high, and this group of prospects looks like there might be 2-3 legit candidates for the job.
 

Claypool

Registered User
Jan 12, 2009
13,670
4,352
Take Dobson, or Bouchard, or whomever you think is your future #1/#2 blue liner. The priority is absolutely that high, and this group of prospects looks like there might be 2-3 legit candidates for the job.

If Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,467
8,333
If Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.

Nobody spent a pick on Danny Dekeyser to begin with, so that isn't a good comparison. But you're right, nobody has ever selected a top pairing defenseman outside of the top 3... Karlsson, Josi, Pietrangelo, Subban, Burns, Weber, Ekman Larsson, Suter, Werenski, Jones, Keith, McDonagh aren't top pairing caliber defensemen.

If they don't pick Bouchard or Dobson, it shouldn't mean they think less of those players; it should mean that whoever they pick, they feel so highly of that they couldn't miss the opportunity to add them. Who would your choice be if given the authority to make the pick, and why? Just curious if you have a gut reaction that I haven't been able to see myself.
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,718
8,241
If Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.

Dahlin is considered a franchise dman and probably the best dman to be draftde in years, Svechnikov is considered a Kane level of winger talent, then you have a bunch of other guys who people arent sure of. Bouchard or Dobson might not be considered on the level of Dahlin but they are definitely thought of as having top pair potential. Maybe not number one dmen but for sure top pairing. Not going in the top 3 which already has Dahlin and Svechnikov doesnt mean they arent future top pairing guys.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
If Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.
Noah Dobson – Hockey Prospects – DobberProspects

"Potential top pairing two-way defenseman with size."


The Draft Analyst | 2018 Draft Profile: RHD Evan Bouchard

"Bouchard has top-pairing potential with the skills and smarts to be a big point producer at the NHL level."


And both these guys put up PPG or better in their draft season, as opposed to DDK scoring 15 points in 35 games at Western before going undrafted.

Now ultimately, all that matters is what the Wings think of these guys, and there's probably several options that they'd be happy with at 6. But to suggest that the defensemen in the top 10 of this draft are nothing to write home about simply isn't true.

EDIT: And I never meant to imply that elite defensemen cannot be found throughout the draft by other teams. Just not by Detroit, considering their track record for the last 15 years.
 
Last edited:

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
EDIT: And I never meant to imply that elite defensemen cannot be found throughout the draft by other teams. Just not by Detroit, considering their track record for the last 15 years.
Can't find what you don't spend the picks on.

From 2000-2013 (unless I'm missing someone):

5 D taken in the first 2 rounds by Wings. Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, Sproul,
7D taken in the first 3 rounds : Nicastro and Fournier get added.

If you look at that list, it's maybe not super impressive but it's also not complete garbage if you consider that everyone of those top 2 rounds picks got NHL time.

We've taken 3 D in the first 2 rounds since then: Cholo, Hronek, Lindstrom.
6 D in the first 3 rounds: Saarijarvi, Kotkansalo, Zablocki get added.

So we're close to matching the number of D taken in the first 3 rounds in 4 drafts compared the 14 drafts before that. After the '18 draft we will almost certainly be higher on both totals considering the amount of picks we have.

It still would be great to take a d-man with our #6 pick to help the odds along even further, but a track record of not taking shots can't be used to accurately predict what will happen when you actually take the shots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nut Upstrom

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
Can't find what you don't spend the picks on.

From 2000-2013 (unless I'm missing someone):

5 D taken in the first 2 rounds by Wings. Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, Sproul,
7D taken in the first 3 rounds : Nicastro and Fournier get added.

If you look at that list, it's maybe not super impressive but it's also not complete garbage if you consider that everyone of those top 2 rounds picks got NHL time.

We've taken 3 D in the first 2 rounds since then: Cholo, Hronek, Lindstrom.
6 D in the first 3 rounds: Saarijarvi, Kotkansalo, Zablocki get added.

So we're close to matching the number of D taken in the first 3 rounds in 4 drafts compared the 14 drafts before that. After the '18 draft we will almost certainly be higher on both totals considering the amount of picks we have.

It still would be great to take a d-man with our #6 pick to help the odds along even further, but a track record of not taking shots can't be used to accurately predict what will happen when you actually take the shots.
Had at least one or two of the few shots they've taken since Kronwall been even an average NHL defenseman, I could see your argument about sample size. But even when you underdraft the position, having that long a stretch of putting out hot garbage means there's something inherently wrong.

Until a Hronek or Cholowski (or any defensemen they take this year) show some decent play at the NHL level, I stand by my belief that this organization has a real problem with developing talent on the blue line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: njx9

SirloinUB

Registered User
Aug 20, 2010
4,642
2,120
Canada
Had at least one or two of the few shots they've taken since Kronwall been even an average NHL defenseman, I could see your argument about sample size. But even when you underdraft the position, having that long a stretch of putting out hot garbage means there's something inherently wrong

Huh?? I guess it depends on your measuring stick. Typically, a defensive draft pick that plays a few hundred games is considered average NHL player/good pick. The wings have definitely found those.

What they haven’t ound is the top line studs.
 
Last edited:

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,842
8,561
Huh?? I guess it depends on your measuring stick. Typically, a defensive draft pick that plays a few hundred games is considered average NHL player/good pick. The wings have definitely found those.

What they have found is the top line studs.
Finding a warm body to stick in the NHL for a few years is a great job with a mid to late round pick, no doubt. But that's very different than being able to identify and develop a decent to good NHL player, and I don't consider any of Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, or Sproul to be decent to good NHL players.
 

Richard Moistmaker

Registered User
May 9, 2018
136
120
We should absolutely take a D man with our first pick. Not very often you have a draft with 5 D men who could go top 10. We can grab all the forwards we want in the next draft as it will be loaded with them. None of these wingers are substantially better than these D options in the 4-9 range.
 

NickH8

Registered User
Jul 3, 2015
3,646
3,773
Can't find what you don't spend the picks on.

From 2000-2013 (unless I'm missing someone):

5 D taken in the first 2 rounds by Wings. Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, Sproul,
7D taken in the first 3 rounds : Nicastro and Fournier get added.

If you look at that list, it's maybe not super impressive but it's also not complete garbage if you consider that everyone of those top 2 rounds picks got NHL time.

We've taken 3 D in the first 2 rounds since then: Cholo, Hronek, Lindstrom.
6 D in the first 3 rounds: Saarijarvi, Kotkansalo, Zablocki get added.

So we're close to matching the number of D taken in the first 3 rounds in 4 drafts compared the 14 drafts before that. After the '18 draft we will almost certainly be higher on both totals considering the amount of picks we have.

It still would be great to take a d-man with our #6 pick to help the odds along even further, but a track record of not taking shots can't be used to accurately predict what will happen when you actually take the shots.
Zablocki's a right wing.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
Zablocki's a right wing.
Just went off wiki that has it wrong, of course he is a winger now that you mention it.

Had at least one or two of the few shots they've taken since Kronwall been even an average NHL defenseman, I could see your argument about sample size. But even when you underdraft the position, having that long a stretch of putting out hot garbage means there's something inherently wrong.

Until a Hronek or Cholowski (or any defensemen they take this year) show some decent play at the NHL level, I stand by my belief that this organization has a real problem with developing talent on the blue line.
Smith is probably about average for a late 1st. We have a ”problem” developing D talent but even a fairly superficial analysis indicates that a major part of that was simply not having enough picks and not using enough picks on D. Won’t automatically mean more picks means we’ll find stars, but odds are a lot better. Same with using the #6 pick on a D, no guarantees but improved odds. At the same time you can’t focus blindly on D to the point where you miss out on better talent for positional need.
 
Last edited:

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,211
4,420
Boston, MA
Just went off wiki that has it wrong, of course he is a winger now that you mention it.


Smith is probably about average for a late 1st. We have a ”problem” developing D talent but even a fairly superficial analysis indicates that a major part of that was simply not having enough picks and not using enough picks on D. Won’t automatically mean more picks means we’ll find stars, but odds are a lot better. Same with using the #6 pick on a D, no guarantees but improved odds. At the same time you can’t focus blindly on D to the point where you miss out on better talent for positional need.

Except that it seems much more the case that people find their star D-men later in the draft than the top 10. If this were centers there would be a lot of evidence that stars tend to come out of the top 10 in the draft much more often than after pick 10. Players like Karlsson, Weber, Keith, Chara, Subban, Burns, Ellis, Klingberg, Gardiner, Byfuglienm, Fowler etc are all players that weren't taken in the top 10 but are great defenders. And I can name many, many more that would all feature in Detroit's top pairing in the last half decade that weren't taken in the top third of the first round. And that's the problem. It seems most teams are able to take players that in redrafts would have been top 10 picks, and develop them from what they were into top pairing guys, and Detroit can't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StargateSG1

waltdetroit

Registered User
Jul 20, 2010
2,649
526
It seems most teams are able to take players that in redrafts would have been top 10 picks, and develop them from what they were into top pairing guys, and Detroit can't.
I wouldn't say "can't"...I would say "haven't lately" though I have hopes for Hronek & Cholo and to a lesser extent Saar & Lindstrom.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
Except that it seems much more the case that people find their star D-men later in the draft than the top 10. If this were centers there would be a lot of evidence that stars tend to come out of the top 10 in the draft much more often than after pick 10. Players like Karlsson, Weber, Keith, Chara, Subban, Burns, Ellis, Klingberg, Gardiner, Byfuglienm, Fowler etc are all players that weren't taken in the top 10 but are great defenders. And I can name many, many more that would all feature in Detroit's top pairing in the last half decade that weren't taken in the top third of the first round. And that's the problem. It seems most teams are able to take players that in redrafts would have been top 10 picks, and develop them from what they were into top pairing guys, and Detroit can't.
A lot of those non-top10 picks were still 1st rounders or 2nd rounders (in many cases early 2nds). There are a few exceptions of course, but still the majority of top-pairing D get taken in the first 2 rounds. When we’re talking 00-16 we’re talking years when we had maybe 1 pick in the top 50 most years. Nashville missed Karlsson the year they got Josi in the 2nd. That type of stuff can happen when you have multiple picks in a range where talent is available. Having extra picks in rounds 3-7 helps with finding late round gems too, but in most years there literally aren’t any or barely any top4D coming out of those rounds. It’s nice to hope that you can take the best players available in each round of the draft and get talent, but reality is much more about being able to draft 3 or 4 of the best guys available and maybe ONE will turn into a star. Ideally we will have multiple 1sts/2nds next year as well. Margin for error. No guarantees, but much better odds. Just like one 2nd round pick in ’16 would land us Smith, but two landed us Hronek as well.
 

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,211
4,420
Boston, MA
A lot of those non-top10 picks were still 1st rounders or 2nd rounders (in many cases early 2nds). There are a few exceptions of course, but still the majority of top-pairing D get taken in the first 2 rounds. When we’re talking 00-16 we’re talking years when we had maybe 1 pick in the top 50 most years. Nashville missed Karlsson the year they got Josi in the 2nd. That type of stuff can happen when you have multiple picks in a range where talent is available. Having extra picks in rounds 3-7 helps with finding late round gems too, but in most years there literally aren’t any or barely any top4D coming out of those rounds. It’s nice to hope that you can take the best players available in each round of the draft and get talent, but reality is much more about being able to draft 3 or 4 of the best guys available and maybe ONE will turn into a star. Ideally we will have multiple 1sts/2nds next year as well. Margin for error. No guarantees, but much better odds. Just like one 2nd round pick in ’16 would land us Smith, but two landed us Hronek as well.

And this seems a long way to say Detroit isn't good at scouting defense talent, and/or isn't able to develop it if they can scout it. Because they have had picks in the range of a lot of these picks and picked other players, most of which aren't nearly as good as what was passed.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
I wouldn't say "can't"...I would say "haven't lately" though I have hopes for Hronek & Cholo and to a lesser extent Saar & Lindstrom.

"Haven't in 30ish years" is functionally identical to "can't". I don't understand why you want to give them a pass on a history of abject failure that's longer than most folks on here have been alive.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
And this seems a long way to say Detroit isn't good at scouting defense talent, and/or isn't able to develop it if they can scout it. Because they have had picks in the range of a lot of these picks and picked other players, most of which aren't nearly as good as what was passed.
The point is Wings have sometimes had ONE pick in the range of top quality D-men. It’s just no margin for error. If that one specific player isn’t #1 on your list you miss out. If a goalie or forward is #1 on your list it’s hard to take a D just because of position with your one pick in a round (or sole pick for several rounds).

Nashville passed on EK65 TWICE before taking Josi. They had two 2nds, two 3rds, three 4ths the year they got Ekholm. Margin for error. They didn’t know something special, they just had enough picks to survive some bad ones. The year they got Weber they had three 2nds and got Weber with the last one. If they had only one 2nd they would have only gotten Konstantin Glazachev.
Caps got John Carlson at #27. Great pick. Anyone remember Anton Gustafsson who they selected at #21?
Blues had multiple 1sts when they got Tarasenko, multiple 3rds when they got Parayko... it’s a BIG factor in finding talent, and especially d-men who are notoriously hard to project.

Of course you can nail a pick (Larkin for example as our only pick in the top 2 rounds), but having more shots at the table just gives you much, much better odds.

"Haven't in 30ish years" is functionally identical to "can't". I don't understand why you want to give them a pass on a history of abject failure that's longer than most folks on here have been alive.
Not too many teams have really picked up high-quality D-men while in playoff/contending positions. Maybe it happens every now and then (with 30 teams, flukes occur) but more often it’s bad teams that are stockpiling picks and/or having a better draft position (which means better position in every round) that find them. It’s a failure but a fairly predictable one. Just like I don’t see many superstars in Pittsburgh’s drafting during their playoff streak, or how Chicago can’t smoothly transition from Seabrook and Keith.
 
Last edited:

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Not too many teams have really picked up high-quality D-men while in playoff/contending positions. Maybe it happens every now and then (with 30 teams, flukes occur) but more often it’s bad teams that are stockpiling picks and/or having a better draft position (which means better position in every round) that find them. It’s a failure but a fairly predictable one. Just like I don’t see many superstars in Pittsburgh’s drafting during their playoff streak, or how Chicago can’t smoothly transition from Seabrook and Keith.

I suppose we're arguing the same thing, though for different reasons.

I don't think this team is capable of identifying a Keith or Letang, and I don't think they can develop a Karlsson (I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine, it's only the point in relation to the post I responded to). Therefore, they need to maximize this time and use premium picks on the position, to gamble that high talent will overcome internal deficiencies, and they need to gamble often with later picks, trying to find the falling gems.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->