Buppy

Not really what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the person affected (if anyone) is not necessarily going to be Sproul, or even a kid at all. I would say that Sproul is the most likely, since he is likely already 8th (or lower) on the depth chart, and I don't have much confidence in his ability to elevate himself above that. Curious that you'd be so high on his potential, but also lack confidence in his ability to pull himself up the ladder. Probably because you believe he's already being mishandled and mistreated, though if that were true I don't see why it would be any different without Daley... And speaking of "or lower", that is a possibility as well. It's possible Russo and/or others have already moved ahead of Sproul, and he would be done here even without signing Daley. But assuming that isn't true, and he's currently 8th, I would assume based on recent history that would get ~10 games at the low end, if he's not able to climb up the depth chart. And if he isn't able to pass even one person in our mediocre squad, even with limited game opportunity, then he doesn't deserve anything more and people should start to reconsider their opinions of him. His poor play last year has likely put him in the position of having little margin for error going forward, but the opportunity is there. All he needs to do is play well. Camp, pre-season, practice, and games. The bar he has to get over isn't particularly high; if he's as good as you think it shouldn't be a problem. And finally, I would say that even if he fails in his opportunities, or even if he doesn't get any opportunity at all this year; if he's a healthy scratch all 82 games; it still wouldn't totally preclude the possibility of him developing into something in the future. So I reiterate: Sign Daley .vs develop Sproul is a false dilemma.

But I'm talking about who was better this year, in the NHL. How they scored in juniors/AHL doesn't mean anything. Sproul had a better ppg and p/60 rate when looking at all situations, I'll give him that. However, that isn't a very fair comparison. Sproul got significant PP time and almost no SH time, while Ouellet was the exact opposite. Sproul's smaller sample size is also more subject to skewing. 5v5 scoring rates for the two were nearly identical. Sproul was more sheltered, getting much more favorable offensive deployment. Individual shot rates were similar. With Ouellet on the ice, the team took more shot attempts, more shots on net, and scored more. That's why I say he produced more offense, not because of his total points. And that in addition to being better defensively.

You disliking the Daley signing doesn't bother me at all. You suggesting that because of the Daley signing we can't still develop Sproul does, because it's wrong.

You're still creating a false dilemma here. Building for the future and trying to make the playoffs are not mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure you have made that exact argument in the past. But now when Daley is threatening one of your pet prospects, you're going the other way. Furthermore, Daley isn't even necessarily taking anything away from Sproul or any other kid. We could just as easily give up on Sproul without Daley, or he could play every game with him. And finally, even if Daley does for sure take a spot away from a kid, and that kid will eventually turn into a decent top 4, it is still a gross exaggeration to suggest that it would have any serious impact on our future. You're inventing arguments based on emotion rather than really thinking about anything. You want to see Sproul play. Fine. You don't need to justify that opinion. But if you want to say Holland is dumb for maybe not sharing it, you should come up with something more than a pile of logical fallacies.

I'm guessing that if Sproul struggles again then whatever shot he's given won't be fair in your mind. The new Jurco. The semantics aren't the point. I'm not trying to quibble about labels, I'm pointing out that the labels don't actually mean anything. Being labeled an offensive defenseman doesn't mean he's providing offense. Labels and potential should not form the foundation for an assessment of how a player is playing, or for comparing players at present, or making an argument for giving a player more time. That is what is absurd. Like I said before, it's fine to be optimistic about his potential, and no one is arguing against giving him another shot. Just that we shouldn't be saying Sproul was as good as Ouellet because we think someday he'll be better. Or that we prefer the "offensive" guy over the "defensive" guy, and criticizing the coach for doing the opposite, when in fact the defensive guy is also providing more offense.

Question all you want, but fans should keep in mind that these professionals in fact do know more than you. Doesn't mean they'll always be right, or that we shouldn't ever be critical, but it should at least prompt us to think, to really consider our opinions and accept the possibility that we might not know as much as we think. Instead fans tend to "think" through their emotions, get blinded by their preconceptions, and spend much more time trying to prove themselves right than determining if they are. So we end up arguing semantics, over-generalizations, and false dilemmas. Rebuilding doesn't even mean anything. At least nothing so specific that signing or not signing Daley, or playing or not playing Sproul can be considered the line between rebuilding or not. Nor is signing vets in general. You say you're not in favor of tanking, but here you're arguing that we shouldn't try to make the playoffs. Not because it's relevant or you really believe it, but because you're trying to come up with arguments against Daley. I don't doubt that you'd make the exact opposite argument if you thought you could convince anyone that Sproul would make us a better team. And Rasmussen is a great example of what I'm talking about. A whole legion of fans (many of whom usually overrate prospects and overlook any flaws) hate the pick and most likely don't know anything about him other than that some stat guy on the internet didn't like him. A whole bunch of people who evaluate hockey prospects for a living liked him enough to rank him in the top half of the first round, but they must all be idiots who were blinded by his size, because that guy on the internet noticed he had one bad stat.

He has been an offensive defenseman in the OHL and the AHL (sort of). That doesn't make him anything in the NHL. Stylistically he might be offensive, but if he's not actually scoring or adding any kind of offense (or actually hurting the offense when he's on the ice) then he isn't really an offensive defensemen. It's fine to be optimistic about Sproul's potential, just don't confuse that with what he actually does on the ice. Assuming the team hasn't already given up on him, he will get an opportunity. Won't likely be every game, nor should it be considering how bad he was. If he sucks again, he probably won't get many chances; nor should he. You should be good with that.

That slice is probably around 40', he won't notice. And it isn't finished yet.

Sproul's last year in junior and 1st in GR were the only years he has scored much more than Ouellet. Their last year in GR, they scored at the same rate. Ouellet's 5v5 scoring this year was slightly better than Sproul's. He also had more shots and shot attempts. The team was far better in both possession and goals for with Ouellet (in addition to being better defensively). And Ouellet wasn't nearly as sheltered as Sproul was. The situation Sproul was in he probably should have had the best numbers on the team, but instead was the worst or near so in pretty much everything. And that after three years in GR where he scored at the same rate as Ericsson, and didn't show any improvement from his first year to his last. Calling him an "offensive defensemen" is like calling our 2022 1st-round pick "Keith". Might be true someday (probably not), but it for sure wasn't true this year. Based on this year, Sproul couldn't even lift Ouellet's jock strap using a crane made out of Lidstrom's jock straps, which he couldn't even drive anyway.

I think Ouellet is better than Jensen, but that's not saying much. Neither are that good, and unlikely to ever be that good. Filler, more or less. Sproul most likely will never be anything. Wasn't all that good in GR and didn't really show any improvement from his first year to his last. In his limited time with the Wings, he has been pretty awful in every measurable way. Much like Smith in being a supposed offensive guy but not providing any offense. Unlike Smith, he has terrible possession metrics despite a heavily sheltered role. I don't mind giving him further opportunities because you never know, but if he ends up a healthy scratch more often than not I won't lose any sleep about it. Ironically enough, I think Daley could be a good partner for Sproul. I would guess there will be enough injuries that everyone (and probably Russo again too) will get an opportunity.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I'm indifferent about Daley mostly. Decent deal if Kronwall and Ericsson again struggle with injuries (and Daley doesn't). But I think some of your points are off base. This one in particular, while a fairly common belief, is I think often exaggerated. This article (and part 1, which is linked at the beginning of that piece) show a similar trend in age effects for forwards and defensemen. ES offense holds up a bit better for defenders, but ES defense is worse. Overall a little better for defensemen in Daley's age range, but still declining. Curiously, some of the data also shows defensemen developing/peaking earlier than forwards. Selection bias probably explains part of that, but I think it also suggests that defensemen do not develop as slowly as is commonly believed. For the record, I still don't think Jensen is particularly good.

Wild sign Landon Ferraro. Probably won't make the big team, but at least he has a shot. Vlasic @ $7M for 8 years. Wow.

Didn't. He's RFA.

Footnote to that: McDavid's deal won't take effect until 18-19 season, which of course is an unknown cap.

That isn't entirely accurate. While the numbers are correct based off the 07-08 season cap, the contract didn't go into effect until 08-09, when the cap was $56.7M, making it ~15.34% of the cap. McDavid's deal might be the similar at the time of signing, but in order for it to be similar when it goes into effect, the cap would have to go up to ~$86.3M for 18-19 (and $114.2M by 21-22, in order for the deal to "age" like Crosby's has). Unlikely to say the least. You can argue that no one knew the cap would go up like it did, but given the first two years of the cap era it was probably a safer bet than it is today, when recent cap increases have been smaller. Also, Crosby's current deal was actually signed when the cap was $70.2M (~12.4 of the cap) and went into effect when the cap was $64.3M (~13.5%). Though it is also for 12 years.

Much like Yakupov, Morrow, and Gelinas, there isn't a real downside to a cheap deal.

He has two more seasons in junior before he can go GR (aside from late season after TC is done), though that doesn't necessarily affect your timetable.

Wouldn't mind giving Gelinas or Morrow a shot on a cheap deal. Mobile defensemen who can shoot. Gelinas had a solid rookie year, and 2nd wasn't bad. Worst case, they can't win a spot in camp and we waive them. Yakupov could be good on a cheap deal as well.

I doubt anyone actually knows, but there were a handful of decent scorers on his team if that means anything. Seems likely he was used more as a shooter rather than playmaker this year. I don't think it really matters though. He had a pretty good assist rate on the PP, to go along with his top goal rate. Last year as a 16yo rookie, he had 18 ES assists, which was probably pretty good for his age bracket (and probably middle of the pack among all players). Most of the scouting reports say he's a good passer/playmaker. It's one stat, from one season, from a 17 year old. People should keep that in mind. Maybe it was just a fluke, maybe it's something he needs to get better at. No one in this draft is going to amount to anything in the NHL if they don't improve from where they are now.

I might put it as people are trying to emphasize his potential strengths amidst a sea of people focusing solely on his potential negatives. And you're simplifying quite a lot with the "net front" thing. Again I want to emphasize that he is described very similarly to Vilardi. They have a very similar skillset. Both were highly ranked. Both have similar peaks. Both could be complete busts. Rasmussen is being s*** on entirely because analytics is the hot new fad, even though very few have even a decent understanding of them and almost everyone vastly overrates their impact. And it's not even really analytics. It's one particular stat (even strength assists) from one season from a 17yo. Last year he had 18 es assists (could find how many primary/secondary though). Judging by this year, that was probably one of the better totals from players in his age bracket (which would likely explain all the scouting reports calling him a good playmaker). Vilardi was the only available player that was consistently ranked ahead of Rasmussen, and as I've said they are very similar. There is not some huge nor even any obvious talent gap between them (or any of the other players we might have picked).

But Rasmussen does fill a need. Or rather, he has a skillset that should. If, and that's still and if, he ends up being moved to wing, he could still fill a need. Vilardi has the same questions about whether or not he'll be a center in the NHL (probably even more than Rasmussen). Tippett isn't a center at all. Suzuki has questions. Necas has questions. All of the D have questions. It's not like we were looking at Crosby and picked Holmstrom instead. People are comparing the potential negative of Rasmussen to the potential peaks of other players. Any player is going to look bad that way.

Pretty liberal use of the term huge, but also way missing the point. Sure, a swing of 126 shots seems like a big deal, and all else being equal it is. But it should not outweigh the importance of how well you perform against the 3400 shots still coming at you. Even the very best possession teams spend close to half the game playing defense. Some people act like playing defense slightly less is more important than playing defense better. It isn't. And furthermore, Rasmussen by most accounts has a skillset that should fit well with a possession system. Strong with the puck, good in the corners and behind the net, effective forechecker, decent skater, capable passer, solid defensively. So this whole argument is largely moot.

Thing is, when people start arguing to prove their point, they have a tendency to exaggerate maybe beyond what they intend to say. Like "he had an ok season; which probably says something about how generally untalented he is". If we could keep things reasonable, like your post here, we wouldn't have so many problems. (But probably less discussion as well, so...) But the people who blame him exclusively for the bad stuff are the same people who refuse to give him credit for the good stuff.

Mantha in his 2nd year scored 50g, 89p in the QMJHL. Translates to about 37g, 66p in 50 games, opposed to Rasmussen's 32 and 55. Rasmussen is younger than Mantha was, plus as already noted it's a different situation so you shouldn't expect them to be exact. They are a lot closer than you are making it out to be regardless. Professional scouts say he has skill, and his ceiling is top-line center. Probably won't hit his peak (most don't), but seems a likely top-6 power forward. Scouting reports on he and Vilardi are almost identical. You are greatly exaggerated perceived faults. Nashville's defense was 15th in the league. And while they ranked 5th in corsi, they were still only 51.37%. They were a middle-of-the-pack team that got hot and played really well in the playoffs. Let's not act like they were some powerhouse phenom team and the new model for how things should be done. But the thing you always seem to ignore is that there is no such thing as always having the puck. Three teams this year had a corsi above 52%, no one above 55%. Conversely, only one team was below 47%. Don't let yourself be blinded by Tippett's hyperbole.

Funny enough, Vilardi and Rasmussen are described very similarly. Versatile two-way power-forward types. Both good at protecting the puck, both supposedly good playmakers (though the stats don't support that as well for Rasmussen). Both have question marks (Skating for Vilardi, 5v5 scoring for Ras). Some don't even project either as a center in the NHL at all, but both pretty consistently projected as top-6 power forwards. Vilardi was the higher ranked though.