Leaderboard

You can tell it’s the off-season when we have 3-4 pages straight of Hicketts chat

Of course fans base opinions on simplistic and usually biased evaluations of limited data. That's why fans shouldn't make roster decisions or constantly act like they'd make better roster decisions than people who have won championships in roster-decision-making. I don't think I (or anyone here) could come up with a truly accurate list of criteria used to make a proper evaluation, but generally speaking I would say real game-situation physical abilities, puck skills, decision making, off-ice habits, and history at lower levels. The sum of all of that (plus whatever I missed) for Hicketts would be, in the opinion of management, somewhat below Jensen at least, and certainly below any of the actual vets. (Ouellet is debateable. It's plausible enough that the team would rather have Hicketts play in GR than sit in the pressbox in Detroit, even if they thought he was better. But let's not argue that this proves your point. It's conjecture, Ouellet isn't a vet, and you're not arguing for Hicketts to be a healthy scratch anyway.) You say "just the easy way out" as if it makes any sense. It doesn't, nor does it actually fit the data. Too many exceptions. Just a couple years ago we waived Frk and Pulk to give waiver-exempt AA a spot. Larkin walked on at 19. Like half the roster earned their full-time spots while still exempt. 2013 with a rookie Smith and a fairly new Kindl, Brian Lashoff still managed to push veteran Ian White out of the lineup, and later that year we brought Dekeyser straight out of college. In fairly short order we dumped Kindl and sent Lashoff back in favor of Ouellet and Marchenko, with the latter soon being jettisoned to make room for Jensen. I'd bet there will be some waiver-exempt kid on the roster next season. Maybe more than one. There is no evidence that the team is at all unwilling to move fringe players when they think they have a better option. The only logical conclusion is that the team just doesn't agree with your assessment of Hicketts relative to our other defensemen.

Are we done talking about the harassment now? Because I want to talk about how Karlsson's wife got pregnant by another teammate's fiancee.

I mentioned this in a previous post, which is a huge reason I'm saying we shouldn't trade up. Pick best player available at 6, and try to move up after that.

Bob McKenzie said on his podcast Zadina might slip out of the top 5. But mainly because C and D prospects have really stepped it up and because of team needs in the top 5.

My concern would be if he can maintain that style of play over a full season at the NHL level with bigger, faster, and stronger opponents, At some point, tenacity and hard work can no longer overcome lack of skill.

Ummm...I don't really want to go back and read all this Hicketts stuff so I'm just going to assume that some people REALLY want Hicketts on the team, and some people (correctly) think he's not very good. I'd only add that he was resoundingly outplayed by Hronek last season in the AHL and still got a call up, where he was gifted minutes he didn't earn (Blashill even acknowledged this) and scored enough powerplay points to make some folks overlook how abysmal he looked at even strength. He got badly outplayed in the AHL last season by Lashoff and McIlrath, so I'm not sure why anyone thinks he's better than Ouellet or Jensen. And we're leaving out the obvious fact that despite his supposed "grit" or whatever, the plucky little pluckster from Kamloops is one Tom Wilson forecheck away from death at the NHL level. He's neither big, nor quick, nor overly skilled. He's the Rudy Ruettiger of hockey, and while it makes a good story folks need to remember that Rudy never played an NFL game.

I agree that we as fans shouldn't pretend to know better than management. But I also don't think we should just assume, just because they're managers, that every decision they make is the right one. I don't think I know more than Holland, and I certainly don't think I could do a better job than him as a general manager. But I'm not so blind and naive to think he never makes mistakes. I give credit where credit is due, but also criticize when I feel it's warranted. Of course we can't see all the behind the scenes stuff that goes into evaluating players. But based on what we can see, and articles I've read from people that actually do see "some" of the behind the scenes stuff, I think Hicketts should have been at least given an opportunity out of camp last year. He certainly should be given every opportunity this year, assuming he performs at the same level in training camp. Maybe Hicketts surprises and becomes a Krug type player for us in the next couple years. Maybe he falters and becomes a career AHLer. No one knows for sure what Hicketts will be at the NHL level, I just want him to be given an opportunity. I'm sure he will be... eventually.

Not a bit. That's certainly one way to look at it. The way I see it, and the reason I find that situation so impressive for Bouchard, is that London traded away 4 of their top forwards (Robert Thomas, Max Jones, Cliff Pu and Sam Miletic) for a boat load of prospects and draft picks. They didn't trade away a single defenseman. So it's not like Bouchard's minutes significantly increased, or he needed to take on a bigger role on the back end. He just needed to continue anchoring the blueline, playing huge minutes (often upwards of 30 minutes a night), continue to lead on and off the ice (he was named captain after the deadline), and continue to produce without the same offensive support. I find it more impressive that London were rebuilding, trading off a lot of big names, but felt Bouchard was the guy they should keep around to guide the younger players. They could have gotten a huge return on Bouchard, but they elected to keep him. Bouchard thinks the game at an elite level, is said to be one of the best passers in the entire draft (outside of Merkley), can shoot the puck a ton, logs huge minutes and plays in all situations. He's known for his ability to quarterback the power-play, but doesn't rely on the PP to pad his stats. 54 of his 87 points came at even strength. It's been a long time since we've had an all around great two-way defenseman like Bouchard. He's definitely who I want at 6.

TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP

Any concerns about what was said in the video about Bouchards final season in the OHL being inflated because his team basically set him up to succeed, more ice time, favorable situations, etc..? BTW, can someone give me another "like"? I don't like sitting at 666.

I literally have no valid reason for believing this. I agree with you on Bouchard. The only other guy I would take if he's still there (besides Dahlin and Svech of course) is Zadina. We just need D too badly to pass up any of the high end Dmen there. And I wouldn't trade up to 3 either. The quality of player ur getting at 6 is virtually the same as what ur getting at 3. I mean unless some ridiculous scenario happens where Dahlin or Svech is there, then yes I trade up, but otherwise, keep 6, and trade 30 and 36 to move up into the 20's an draft a C. So basically, expect Holland to do none of this.

Oh man, on the HOF boards Habs fans are going nuts! Arizona fans seem to be disappointed because they liked Domi, but they get it. First Weber for Subban, now this.....Bergevin is giving Chiarelli a run for his money.

There's no guarantee whatsoever that Zadina will be any better than Wahlstron or Kotkaniemi, but I do feel he's the safest bet of the three. He's probably ready to step right in and have a Calder-worthy rookie season, regardless of which team gets him. I still prefer Svechnikov, but Zadina does have "lights-out goal-scorer" written all over him. The other thing is I'm trying to think about this in the context of what we're hearing about the Wings and their actual preferences. As far as I know, not a single credible source has linked them to Wahlstrom, which leads me to believe (perhaps foolishly) that they're not all that keen on him. I like the "Kopitar 2.0" angle re: Kotkaniemi, in theory -- but I'm not entirely sold on him.

AA or Mantha + 30 wouldn't be enough to get the #7 alone. I don't know if it would even get Horvat alone. He's better than either of them, and younger. Larkin +30 is at least worth considering. Larkin is already better, and could yet take another step towards "elite", whereas Horvat probably peaks slightly above where he's at now. So the question is would the #7 be enough of an impact over who we'd get at 30 to be worth the downgrade? If even Mantha +30 + one of the other (or maybe both) early picks would get Horvat + 7, I couldn't say "yes" hard enough. That's why it would never happen of course.

No, I'm acting like you're saying he was treated unfairly in being left off last year's roster. Though I'm not sure you and Kr are saying the same thing. Seems you're talking about next year, while the rest of us are talking about last. I'd agree that Hicketts should get a shot next year, and he will, just as he had a shot last year. You just have to remember that "a shot" is not the same thing as "guaranteed spot on the roster". Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. When you are evaluating Hicketts you are clearly considering factors besides his play in a few preseason games, but then you say that those games should have determined the roster. It's hypocritical. Why shouldn't the team also look at other factors when determining the depth chart? Or is that you just can't accept that the team could draw a different conclusion from yours? Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to think that management just has a different opinion than yours when it comes to how good these players are? There are far too many exceptions to give any credence to the "veteran bias" narrative. While there is no doubt a hesitance to give up assets in favor of a kid who only "might" be about the same, that demonstrates nothing more than awareness of the uncertainty in judging prospects. Takes more than a handful of games for a marginal prospect like Hicketts to work himself into a "tie" with an established player. He shouldn't have sucked so bad in GR last year. He would have been called up sooner, maybe stuck around longer, and maybe we wouldn't even be debating his position for next year. Or maybe he'd be another Russo and we'd already be done with him. But he's likely done enough in his few games that another good camp could easily move him ahead of at least Ouellet. (Fair chance we've just seen enough of Ouellet regardless.) If he's not on the roster next year, it will most likely be because one of more of the other kids jump ahead of him. And everyone will ignore that kid and continue to act like Hicketts is getting screwed because he's a kid.

We should sign Hoffman's fiancee.

Domi is RFA for longer than Chucky, maybe Habs wanted that control?

On the other hand, if a kid is only "tied" with the bottom of a rebuilding roster, that kid could probably use another year or two in the minors. But there aren't any ties anyway. If Joe Hicketts was the author of his own comic book, titled "the Amazing Hicketts-man", the superhero's weakness would be the inability to lift the jockstraps of Red Wings' veteran defensemen. He was never tied with anyone. Of course, you'll say again that it isn't about Hicketts. But who is it about? Where did this whole idea of veteran bias come from? Who has ever been held back? Maybe you could argue Nyquist and Tatar for half the lockout season? Mantha for 10 games? And all three of them were also behind other young players. Does that really seem like a logical foundation for suggesting that the Wings don't give young players a fair shot? Putting in two good young guys is a positive. Two young guys that you think maybe might not be any worse than the crap we already have is not. It's nothing. It's just a way to get sick of those kids earlier. (See: Kindl, Smith, Marchenko, Ouellet, Jensen, Hicketts by February 2020) The rules shouldn't change, and I doubt all the rhetoric about the wide-open roster, "overripe is over", etc. means what people think it means. It's an acknowledgement that our current team sucks. It sucks because our players aren't very good. Since they aren't very good, it's a naturally lower bar. Lower bar + better prospects + prospects in general developing pro-style habits earlier = more open roster. But there's no philosophical change. The "rule" is, and always has been, "get over the bar". Hopefully that never changes. If it does, that's when we'll need new management.

IF he is willing to sign a year deal, it could be more strategic for Kovy to sign with a team like the Wings then a team he thinks is a contender. With that being said, I dont think he's coming to Detroit. I think he's negotiating with as many teams as possible in order to up his value. The argument for coming to Detroit would be that they are not likely making the playoffs, meaning that at the TDL he could be traded to a legit contender. For a UFA, best case scenario is signing with a legit contender (but that's easier said then done), 2nd best scenario is signing with a bad team that can trade you at the TDL, worst case is signing with a fringe team that may be a playoff team, but not good enough to do any damage, and not bad enough to trade you (think us in 2014). At least by signing with Detroit, he has a high chance of being traded to a legit contender come TDL, especially if its 1 year with a modified NTC.

This seems like the most appropriate place to put this video.....scary stuff.