Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I'm not saying we didn't get good players under Wright. I'm asking if [name pulled from a hat] likely would not have been able to match or outperform Wright's track record with the Wings. Larkin was a home run, though a lot of people had him going right around where we took him. Svechnikov is starting to feel like a mistake, though he's had s*** luck with injuries and that hasn't helped his cause one bit. Cholowski and Hronek are still question marks, though the early returns are very promising. Rasmussen is a big question mark. Zadina's probably going to be a very good NHLer, but there are thousands of hockey people who would've taken him where we took him. Veleno fell into our laps. I give Wright credit for not overthinking that pick (same with Zadina), but at the end of the day the jury's out on Veleno (same with Zadina). Berggren and McIsaac are question marks who went right around where they were projected to go. Lindstrom could be Mattias Ekholm or he could be Alexey Marchenko. Seider was an Yzerman pick. So, I dunno, you tell me: Are we looking at a big loss? And look at the lesser names we've picked. Does that track record scream "Very smart" or "Not very smart" or "About what you'd expect from your average director of amateur scouting"? I lean towards "About what you'd expect." I think the Wings drafted pretty well under Wright. There were two or three drafts that I was really pleased with at the time. I just don't feel like we're losing anything terribly special in Wright. I could be wrong.
  2. 3 points
    Is it OK to think Wright did a pretty good job and also think that he's totally replaceable as well?
  3. 1 point
    Well you're not going to go to jail for thinking so, but it's basically fan logic. Unless you're replacing someone with someone else who's better then it's usually a bad idea. I wouldn't be upset if Yzerman replaced Wright with Al Murray, because Murray has been awesome at the draft. But replacing him with someone who's never even scouted, let alone ran a full, global, scouting program or draft should probably be viewed as a negative.
  4. 1 point
    I dunno that Wright is a big loss, tbh. Looking back on the drafts Wright ran (2014-2019), I think the best thing I can say about our amateur scouting under Wright is that it was pretty good at finding decent players; there aren't many clear mistakes and there aren't many clear home runs and there are a lot of Christoffer Ehns. In other words: what you'd expect from a competent director of amateur scouting. Of course, it's still too early to really reach any kind of authoritative verdict on two or three of those drafts. For example, we're still not sure what we have in Cholowski and Hronek and they were selected in 2016, which was only the third draft of the Wright era. So, I think it's fair to say the jury's out and won't return for at least a couple more years. Having said all that, Wright could be better suited for Edmonton's situation. The Oilers have two stars in McDavid & Draisaitl and Bouchard or Broberg could become a 1D at some point down the road. All they need, then, is a steady supply of serviceable NHLers with some overachievers sprinkled in. They don't need gamechangers the way we need them. I'm basically agnostic about Draper; I can't point to something and say, "This was(n't) a Draper decision" or "This has Draper's fingerprints all over it."
  5. 1 point
    I disagree with your first point. Wright is just one man with a voice. He may have the loudest voice, but there are plenty other voices at the table when they get together leading up to the draft. I'm sure he allows each individual scout to say their piece, and I'm sure there are times when a scout says, "we have to take this guy" and he and the general manager listen. I think, other than Larkin and the 2017 draft, where a couple players (Zadina and Veleno) fell to us, our drafting since 2014 has been average at best. I'm not going to list every selection and who we passed on, but there were quite a few misses over the years. Some more obvious than others. Regarding your second point, I highly doubt Draper has had as little to do with drafting over the past several years as you seem to think. He was assistant to Holland, and I'm sure Draper was in on scouting meetings and even done some scouting of his own. I'm not saying I love the move, but I don't hate it either. I'll reserve judgment until Draper proves to be incompetent. But like I said above, I'm sure, just like any good "director" of scouting, he will rely heavily on his area scouts and get plenty of input and opinions from everyone else within the organization.
  6. 1 point
    1. Given that he was the "Director of Amateur Scouting" my guess is that other than the GM he was the one "directly responsible" for ALL the selections since 2014. IMO they haven't been too bad, and in some cases they were superb. 2. I don't want Draper to replace Tyler Wright as Director of Amateur Scouting because Kris Draper has never been a full time scout at any level. When Wright was hired he came with a track record, he had a long history of working with prospects in Columbus. And considering the Jackets drafted and developed well during that time, you could reasonably infer that he knows what he's doing when it comes to prospects. None of that is possible with Draper because, as previously mentioned, he's never been involved with prospects at all. He was the Assistant to the GM. I'd be less worried if they'd promoted Jiri Fischer (for example) to Wright's old position because he's been working with prospects for years.
  7. 1 point
    Bummed to see Tyler Wright leave, thought he did a pretty good job with our drafting over the years. REALLY bummed to see Kris Draper taking over for Wright.
  8. 1 point
    If the Rangers offered Kakko for AA, would you consider it?
  9. 1 point
    https://www.mlive.com/redwings/2019/07/tyler-wright-out-as-red-wings-amateur-scouting-director.html he is gone, kenny seems to gather new staff in Edmonton...
  10. 1 point