Buppy

A 3rd, maybe a 2nd if someone's desperate. In other words, not enough to make it worth it.

Draft just wouldn't be the same without your bigoted hysteria. Glad you made it back.

lol, thought you were aiming to alleviate the logjam... Nevermind, I see where we're headed, and I don't feel like suffering the tedium of morphing the topic from scratching Glendening to trading a package for Hanifin to make room. I'm just going to skip about 20 non sequiturs ahead and say, "No, the Wings should not replace all their company vehicles with old ice cream trucks. That's taking the youth movement too far."

Oh yeah, I forgot. According to you a draft pick that might turn into something five years from now should be considered a tie with an established player. But how do we trade Vanek if we don't sign him?

Still waiting for your logic. "Tie goes to the vet" is not bias, even if there any cases where any ties have actually existed. It's a case of "two is better than one". You seem to not realize that GR is still part of the Wings organization. Dumping assets for kid when you only think that kid might be equal to what you're dumping is stupid. Second bold disproves the first. I'd explain it further, but since you don't already get it, it wouldn't help. Do some re-reading, study it for a few weeks, hire some expert tutors to explain it, maybe get some of that Flowers for Algernon surgery...then you might start to grasp the edges.

They don't need to be similar. They're players we've moved on from. It happens. It can happen again. Will happen again. Will it happen with Glendening? I don't know, but it could. Depends what our other option are. But at least I have some kind of logic backing up my opinions. I notice you're still unable to concoct any reasoning behind yours, besides this vet bias nonsense that doesn't fit the facts. You say you respect my opinion, yet you don't even try to understand it. You just see it's not "put the kids on the team no matter what, even if you have to make the team worse" and get all defensive.

Where should I start? Kopecky, Leino, Williams, buying out both Tootoo and Weiss, Hudler, Brunner, Eaves, Emmerton, Andersson, Jurco, Pulkkinen, maybe Frk, Sheahan. Might have missed some. Clearly there's no problem moving on from players when we think we have a better option and/or just don't think the player has a future here. Most of those guys were also demoted from regular to scratch candidate at some point before we dumped them. Then there's the kids I mentioned previously that have already jumped him. Your turn. There's more than one way to over-value a prospect. We have these debates not because you think kids should get "a little more opportunity", but rather the irrational vehemence you put into those debates. You think it's so crazy and stupid that the team (or anyone) could have a different opinion about when a prospect is ready or what they've earned that you imagine crackpot anti-kid conspiracy theories, mishandling prospects, vet bias, defensive bias, apparently now a nonsensical Glendening bias, say things like "f*** Holland" and you want him replaced...all based on nothing but your own opinions, and ignoring all the evidence against. If you thought the kids were going to be stars it would in a way be more rational. If you thought Svech would score 30g, at least the adamance would be understandable. But if you think he's a middle-6 winger, and you expect 15g-35p, what's all the outrage about? That's basically the same production we got from Helm and Abby. So not only are you banking on something that isn't certain, but even if you're right it's no more than a marginal upgrade. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm asking why you think there's no chance Glendening could be scratched. What is the logic behind that? Is it that he hasn't already been scratched? Glen is currently the 10th forward. If you think Svech is capable of jumping him, and presumably Ras could too, and we sign Vanek who was already above him last time...wouldn't that make him 13th, and thus a healthy scratch? You over-value our prospects, and as a result you've developed this belief that they're being treated unfairly. They aren't. And to be clear, I said we haven't had 12 better forwards since he's been here. But maybe we could next year, so long as we're not afraid of some competition.

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing that that is what should happen. I'm saying that's the kind of thing we should hope for out of the kids. We shouldn't be deliberately making the team worse just to give them an easy road. You say the roster is garbage, but you still traded away one of our best forwards and don't want to sign a 50p player just to shoehorn in a couple of rookies. If you think Svech is so good, why do you have to remove all his competition? I don't think the lines would be given equal time, though if we had a good 4th line it would probably be more like 10-12 ES minutes. I would also see the lines as more fluid. I get it if you'd rather the lines just be set in stone, and if I were to go for that I'd probably change them a bit. Point is, I'm trying to fill the lineup with better players. If that includes the kids, great. But if they aren't better, they shouldn't be there.

Why would you think he wouldn't? Because you think every kid in the system is better than Helm and Abby, despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise? Our 4th line last year was usually some combination Glendening, Booth, Witko, or Frk. Been a while since we've had 9 forwards better than Helm/Abby, and I don't think we've had 12 better than Glendening since he's been here. In the last three years Larkin, Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi have all jumped over Glendening on the depth chart, and all did it while still waiver exempt. Ras could easily do it this year. If you don't think Svech could do it, you're either not paying attention or you don't really believe he's good enough. I'm not saying Svech will, or should, take Glendening's spot, or even that Ras should definitely get a spot. May not even be something Svech could accomplish in camp. Someone else (Ras or AA probably) likely needs to take his PK spot first, or Svech show he's a good enough scorer to justify it. He might not be. But it is at least a possibility. Point is, it's something he should earn, not be given because we're afraid he can't.

Svech is that good, but you still had to trade away AA to get him in. At least KRS only wants to not make the team better; you actually had to make it worse. Svech is not at the stage where we need put him on the Wings or get rid of him. You say we're rebuilding, need to get younger, let the kids grow...but you're ignoring the fact that even if he plays in the AHL, he'll still be the same age, still be part of the future, part of the rebuild, still be developing, it's not going to lower his ceiling or stunt his growth. Before you try to argue with me on that ask yourself if you're going to give up on him if he does end up in GR this year. You won't, and you shouldn't, and thus shouldn't act like it'd be hurting the rebuild. The only potential negative, if you could even call it that, is that if he does end up sucking it takes another year or two to find out. On the flip side, it he's good his bridge deal should be a bargain. Why should there be any crap minutes for anyone? It's like you're almost trying to have a bad 4th line. Why are people so intent on having a 4th line that can't score, and isn't even that good defensively? I might be the only guy around here who thinks Glendening is a decent 4th-liner, but it seems I might also be the only guy here who thinks it's feasible that we could build a roster that doesn't include him in the lineup. As it stands we have three open forward spots. (Four if you include Witko. The 14th spot isn't a position you should use for a prospect, but if anyone really wants to see Turgeon scratched 56 times, hey, whatever.) Ras, Svech, Frk, Turgeon, Pope, UFA...those are the options. There's room for a Vanek type and still have a couple kids. Mantha-Larkin-Ras Nyquist-Z-Abby Vaenk-Nielsen-Helm Svech-AA-Bert Four lines that could be dangerous, but also do some grinding, play defense or at least bring high energy. Wingers on each side largely interchangeable, or could go to a defensive line with more skill on another, or swap Helm/Ras to center if AA isn't cutting it. If I'm going to be optimistic, this is the kind of thing I'd be looking for. I don't get how some people can be so optimistic about these kids, but at the same time so pessimistic that you think we need to remove any competition.

Assuming he meant to have MTL and ARI switch places, I could see all of that happening. As much as I want one of the D, I'd be thrilled if it did.

Good point. Chiarelli, Snow, Bergevin, any other "bad" GM...still no one trading top-10s for whatever pile of middling assets. Pipe. Dream.

Top-10 picks traded over the last 10 years: 2017: #8 for Stepan and Raanta 2014: #10 for Ryan (trade made in 2013) 2013: #9 for Schneider 2012: #8 for Staal 2011: #8 (+Voracek) for Carter, #9 part of Kessel deal 2010: #2 for Kessel (trade made in 2009) 2008: #9 for Vokoun, and some swapping of picks within the top-10 Judging by that, trading up into the top-10 seems an unrealistic hope unless you're willing to trade Larkin.

Start each season with 16 co-GMs, fire one every week, and the last one standing "wins" the job for the rest of the year.

Cup obviously. And if you don't believe he could make that much difference, you shouldn't be considering the package anyway. That'd be a concern of mine as well (and that's the biggest reason I'm not interested in Tavares), but with Karlsson and considering defense is our main weakness I'd still do it as long as I was confident I could re-sign him at a non-crippling cap hit.

No, it hasn't. They are willing to trade the 8th pick. They want to get rid of Hossa's contract. Those two things may happen in the same deal. But they are absolutely not going to give up the #8 just to dump Hossa. They'll still want a fair return. Think back to Datsyuk. 16th for 20th + 53rd was a fair enough deal on it's own. All we really did to get rid of Datsyuk's hit was take back Vitale.

Add Karlsson and we could conceivably compete this year.

Is it too late to keep the new hamster?

I mean I think it's possible, but doubtful, that he could play well enough this camp to prove he should get a spot over Glendening. I disagree. His name fills the s*** out of the healthy scratch box on the roster sheet. Turgeon is a couple letters behind. Unless they spell out first names. I don't know, I don't fill them out. Or read them. Or know if they're still a thing. Or care. Plus probably more Polack jokes. Point is it doesn't matter who the part-timers are.

Is that a dead hamster joke? Sicko. I should correct myself; no, we don't need size but it would be nice to have some more. More importantly is that I think Bouchard does have elite offensive upside. Like Brent Burns if all goes well, Weber-level the more conservative peak, and Boychuk at the low end. Hughes seems like he'll be more dependent on his teammates and the system he's in, but I'd predict a somewhat similar range in scoring: 30-70 pts. Dobson is probably the guy with the least offensive skill, like 50-ish pts peak but pairing that with the best all-around game. If I had to choose I'd still go with Boqvist due to his age, but I think they all look great and could all be elite players.

Somewhat difficult question since we don't have a full complement of established forwards. It's likely to be a competition between several kids for at least one spot. Looking at what we have so far I'd say Larkin, Zetterberg, Nyquist, Mantha, AA, Bertuzzi, Abdelkader, Nielsen, and Helm are all above any level Turgeon could plausibly reach. If we sign someone like Vanek or better, they'd go in that list as well. Turgeon just hasn't done enough yet to rise that much in one camp. So far he's a notch below where even Abby, Helm, or Glendening were when they were in GR; also below Sheahan, Andersson, and Emmerton, and no shortage of others who never even made the NHL. He has a lot of work to do. Ras and Svech would probably have to perform poorly in addition to Turgeon playing well. I'm doubtful he could be good enough to even reach Glendening's level, but maybe. Frk and Witko would be within reach, and if that was going to be an every day spot in the lineup I'd want the best player. If it were just for a spot in the pressbox I wouldn't care.

It's like trying to convince a kid that the new hamster is just as good as the old one. @The 91 of Ryans we appreciate the effort, but it's just not the same. Also, composite rankings: Filip Zadina 3.06 Brady Tkachuk 5.24 Oliver Wahlstrom 6.65 Quinton Hughes 6.88 Adam Boqvist 7.41 Noah Dobson 9.29 Evan Bouchard 9.59 Jesperi Kotkaniemi 11.00 Maybe the best top-10 we've seen since...I don't know...before the Wings were bad enough to bother looking at the top-10. Watch, like seven of them are going to bust now.

We could maybe need some size on defense. Too early yet to know if the kids we got last year will do anything, and Cholo and Hronek are both on the small side. Not that it means we need to draft size at #6, but on the other hand Bouchard at least is certainly one of the most skilled players in the entire draft. Dobson is no slouch in the skill department either. Boqvist seems to have fallen for most of the experts (though I still like him). Hughes seems to be the top guy atm, and I'd love him too, but all four look about as good as you can expect drafting 6th. Would be awesome, but trading into the top 10 typically takes a grade A asset. The only ones we have are Larkin and #6. Mid to late teens might be doable though, but I'm not sure anyone too good will drop that far. Some good looking players should be there in the 30s. Not much worse looking than the guys projected in the teens in my opinion.

Even more than that is that they needed a good center even when Plekanec was still kind of good, and then they trade for a couple wingers. Viewed in isolation they aren't really bad trades, but three big trades that are even debatable, while also completely failing to address team needs is just bad.