Buppy

Coreau has actually been pretty good. Couple stinker games, but also like 7-8 really good ones. His call-up wasn't very impressive, but he had some decent moments. I wouldn't mind seeing him as the backup next year.

Several things wrong with this: 1. Average games doesn't mean much of anything. it just favors picks made earlier in the measured range. Three of the Wings 6 picks were from 2013-15. They simply haven't had time to accumulate the number of games as players drafted in the early years. 2 of the other 3 went to college, which also often means getting to the NHL later. Percentage of possible games would be slightly better, but still has the same problem since most prospects won't start in the NHL right away. 2. Not sure how you're getting minutes from average games. 3. If you pay attention to the scale of the charts, our 1st rounders are averaging more games than the other groups. 4. Your "guessing" angle is just you making up stupid s*** to be critical. 5. Having success with later round picks has no bearing on the success of earlier round picks.

Not a bad thing at all. I meant the comparison in a good way, in case it wasn't clear. Yeah, there's a good case for making a move like that. For me it's just that with all the questions about the rest of the roster, he might not have any impact. And it could easily be 5+ years before we get back into contention. He could be pushing 30 and starting to decline by the time we really need him. Or even gone via UFA. If I'm giving up top picks, I want a real star. I think we could get something close to Dumba/Brodin for less. Haydn Fleury would be my prime target. Probably won't be as good a scorer as Dumba, but maybe better defensively, and I'd expect to get him a lot cheaper.

Yeah, but would cost our 1st most likely, and maybe more depending on how desperate. I don't like that idea, but it's not the worst thing that could happen for sure. Dumba is pretty much looking like Kronwall 2.0. Personally, I think Dallas will give up the 3rd for one of them (or maybe for Trouba or Hamonic) and this board will go bats***. Avs could make a bid as well, but I'd think it'd be more likely for them to use Duchene/Landeskog to help their D. Arizona might go after one as well, but they're a mess everywhere, so they might not want to give up a high pick.

For the Wings at least, it doesn't seem to include 2016. Didn't look that close though. Late-round success was largely a myth anyway. That's all luck. Even the teams that look good on this graph look good mostly because of just a few players, and often because those few successes came in the early years of the range allowing those players to get in a fair amount of games. If Marchenko had been a 2007 pick and thus now had an additional 300 games, it would almost double our average games, but wouldn't mean we had actually drafted any better. Also, average games is just one metric. St.Louis looks great in the first round not only because they had a good success rate, but also because most of their picks came early in the range. This info is interesting, just not a complete picture.

What I mean is it isn't really accurate to say he hasn't been given a chance just because he hasn't been given any NHL games. What I'm saying is that the main reason people are considering Frk a "skill" player is because he's currently scoring at a decent rate in the AHL, and he doesn't really do anything else. Conversely we don't consider Abby, Helm, and Sheahan to be skilled because we've been measuring them relative to NHL players for years. If 20yo Helm and 20yo Frk were both in GR, both coming off good junior careers, and Helm put up 16g, 31p in 67 games while Frk put up 3g, 12p in 50...I don't think it's a stretch to say we'd think of Helm as the more skilled player. Optimism on Frk aside, I don't quite understand your pessimism regarding the others. 12-15 goals is pretty much what Helm and Sheahan have already proven they can do in a similar role. Abby is a little different, as he's been better than that in a top role, but also worse at times in both top-6 and bottom-6 roles. While I can see some reason for skepticism, it doesn't make sense to me that you'd be that pessimistic about their potential in a scoring role while also thinking they'd be productive on the 4th line. Maybe you just mean relative to the poor production we got from the 4th line this year, but the way you stated it seemed to imply that you thought a Helm/Sheahan-Nosek-Abby line would actually be good.

Button has never been a fan of Tippett. He had him at 20 in his previous ranking. Not sure why. Something worth noting on some of the high-end Euros... Going by Eliteprospects.com, none of Necas, Pettersson, Liljegren, or Heiskanen have been drafted by the CHL, meaning they would be eligible to go to GR at any time.

Depends how you look at it. He's also had 4 years to earn a call-up.

I don't think anyone is arguing against giving him a shot. (Maybe arguing exactly what "a shot" should entail.) I was just questioning Kip's theory that Frk would be better than Abby in a scoring role.

Yeah, and I stand by it. If his skill doesn't translate, can we call him a "skill player"? Is he really any more skilled than Abby or Sheahan?Maybe he has a better shot, but there's more to skill than just that. But fine. He's a skill player. In the sense that his game is focused on his skill rather than anything else. The main point of my post is that there isn't any good reason to think Frk would produce better than Abby, Helm, or Sheahan; as Kip suggested. Skill player or not, he has to actually be good. The evidence thus far is saying he probably isn't going to be. And the evidence is against your 4th line as well. Not only would it be a tremendous waste of cap space, but given what we've seen of Abby and Sheahan when they have played that 4th-line shut-down role, they won't score any more than anyone else and they aren't even that great defensively either. Helm I'd agree, if his speed and tenacity can hold up against age and injury. But Abby and Sheahan need good players to play off of in order to be effective. If we can't put them in those spots, we should do everything we can to get rid of them. On the other hand, I think if we were to forego the whole 4th-line shut-down role, and instead go with a sheltered, offensively-focused line, it would be and even better opportunity for someone like Frk and even Svech at this stage of his development. This is just a theory though, with no supporting evidence.

Whether or not that skill will translate is exactly what I mean. No doubt he's a skilled AHL player, but that doesn't make him a skilled NHL player. Maybe he'd be productive in the right situation, maybe not. We already know Abby, and to a slightly lesser extent Helm and Sheahan,can be. But everyone wants to ignore that, because new things I guess. Like I said, I don't object to giving him a shot. I just don't expect him to be better than anyone. Probably not a whole lot of examples of decent NHL scorers that took 3 years to become decent in the AHL.

Is Frk really a skill player though, or do we just think that because so far we've only seen his skill relative to AHL players? Helm was a good scorer in juniors and did far better in the AHL than Frk did at the same age. Who knows how he might have looked if he had stayed another two years. Abby scored at a similar rate to even Frk's good seasons. Even Miller was a solid AHL scorer. I don't particularly object to giving Frk a shot, but it's a bit of stretch to expect him to do much of anything. I would expect Abby, Helm, and Sheahan to all produce better than Frk given the same linemates. And oddly enough, I wouldn't expect Abby or Sheahan (both being more complimentary players) to produce much from the 4th line (and their history seems to support this). Helm maybe, depending on how his body holds up. Frk may actually be able to produce better than either in that role.

Vatanen would be interesting. Coming off a down year, plus being injured, maybe he could be had relatively cheap. Doesn't solve our defense problems of course, but could be part of the solution at least. Dumba/Brodin and Hamonic I'd put in with Trouba and Fowler. It'd be great but I don't want to give up a 1st or our top prospects unless it's for a true star. Barrie is on the same level (probably better than all of them in fact), but I don't think the Avs will move him, despite the persistent rumors. Nathan Beaulieu could be interesting. Younger guy with decent production and further potential. Probably come cheap if Habs are really trying to move him. Not really interested in any of the forwards, since the good ones would likely cost more than they'd be worth. Really doubt Jackets trade Jenner.

I assume that's supposed to be a joke...

It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to move Faulk, though unfortunately I think they'd want a return higher than we can pay. Either a top center or a package of high pick + top prospect + something else. I read somewhere that some consider Bean ahead of Fluery already. Could mean Fluery is ripe for the picking, or maybe with all of Hanifin, Bean, and Fluery on the left they try to cash in on Slavin's breakout year. They have an abundance of middling forwards though, so I'm not sure we're a good trade fit.

That deal doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Nothing special about Van Riemsdyk that I see, and Vegas should have no shortage of mediocre forwards to choose from. I guess they'd be getting two players instead of one, but they're already going to be drafted 30 players. The quality of available defensemen looks like it will be higher than that of available forwards, so if I was Vegas I don't know that I'd want Van Riemsdyk anyway. I think I'd want them to protect him so I could take Hartman. And if they protect Hartman, fine, it means they expose Van Riemsdyk and I get him without having to take Kruger. But I guess maybe they might actually like Kruger. A Sheahan deal certainly seems plausible (though I would try to unload Helm or Howard ahead of E). Of course, given the season he just had and even the prior one, they might not see much value in him.

Yeah, I'm "painting a picture", but again you repeat what I originally inferred and you subsequently denied. (Or you're saying Nosek, Frk, and Callahan have top 6 potential.) And you wonder why I'm having a difficult time understanding your position. But whatever. What would you consider overpayment?

Yeah, half your lineup is based on potential, but I'm supposed to believe you're not talking about potential when you repeatedly hammer on Anderson being a bottom 6 winger. Yeah, now you want to say it's all about conserving assets, when it was pretty obvious in your first post that you thought he was on the same level as Nosek and Callahan. Just grow a set and admit either that, for no particular reason, you don't think Anderson has any potential, or that you were being too hasty and your original unequivocal "No thanks" should have been "Sure, for the right price". Or even just, "Yeah, but he'd probably cost too much". And save the bulls*** "You do?" strawman. It's like if I were to say, "Guess you don't like productive and promising young players. Awesome!". It's ******* stupid. Did you think you were going to trick me into agreeing with you, or were you just trying to be insulting because I don't?

My count is different because you're counting a different thing. I said we have two open spots... which is true, barring trades/expansion losses, and assuming the out-of-options Nosek gets a spot. I said nothing about who could be in contention for those spots. But your list of potential candidates raises an interesting question. You contend that we don't have room for another bottom 6 forward, and your reasoning is that we need to fill 3 bottom 6 roster spots with AHL forwards (including slotting two of them above much more proven players). How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Unless, contrary to your claim, you don't consider them AHL players. You're thinking of those kids in terms of potential, as you typically do with young players, but for some reason not with Anderson. I think you just took a cursory look at some stats and decided Anderson was no good. Probably didn't even realize how young he was. I guess you adding the "unless he comes cheap" caveat is as close as we'll come to you admitting you might have been a bit hasty.

14% isn't that unusual. Nyquist was 18%. And they can call it the 3rd line all they want, but when they're getting similar ice time to the "4th" line and his linemates are two of the three worst scorers on the team... whatever. Call it "limited ice time and less-than-great-linemates". I acknowledged it might be a fluke season in my first post. It's not like I'm saying he's some superstud we need to get at any cost. Just saying he shouldn't be so definitively labeled a "bottom 6" and dismissed so casually. All year we've been talking about the possibility of getting some players who might be available due to the expansion draft. I don't know what people were expecting, but Anderson is exactly the kind of player we should be looking for. Young, shows promise, but not so good that he should cost a lot. Not saying I know that much about him, just that your dismissal would make more sense if it were based on some particular knowledge. No, I'm not banking on anyone from GR, other than Nosek, but two open spots (even if we don't lose a forward) still leaves room for one even if we added Anderson. It's not any different than considering a cheap UFA an option, in terms of impact on the opportunities for our prospects. What I find confusing is that you'd label him at all at this stage of his career. Particularly coming from you, given you generally tend to think of prospects and young players in terms of potential rather than strictly the present. I doubt you would so emphatically refer to AA as a bottom 6 winger, or Nosek and Bertuzzi as AHL players. As for what I think it would take...it's probably a pointless discussion. I'm sure whatever I say you'll just argue that either it wouldn't be enough to get him or would be too much to pay. But whatever. A generous RFA deal for him would be $3-3.5M, which has a compensation of a 2nd-round pick. The next level up from that is a 1st and a 3rd. That should set the upper and lower boundaries, with the 1st being a low pick since he would at most be at the very bottom of that compensation range. Given the Blue Jackets' situation, and the possibility they could lose him for nothing, I'd say a fair price would be a 2nd plus something (depending on how desperate they get) ranging from basically nothing (like swapping our 5th for theirs) up to a 3rd-rounder or a second-tier prospect.

Ok, call me confused. You've said bottom 6 like 6 times, plus comparing him to players who aren't even in the NHL yet (including Frk and Callahan who likely never will be). Sure as hell sounds like you you don't think he's any good. What I'm saying is he had borderline top-6 production as a rookie on the 4th line. Your pessimism seems odd, especially when you admit you don't know much about him. And how do we not have room anyway? Even if we don't trade anyone or lose a forward to Vegas, we only have 12 forwards counting Nosek. We aren't going to add two high-end top-6 players, nor do we have an abundance of good forward prospects. Players like Anderson are exactly the type we should be looking to add. Again, I don't know that he's necessarily the best option, and it would depend a lot on what we had to give up, but you shouldn't just dismiss the idea.

I'm just saying that categorizing him as nothing more than a bottom 6 winger with no potential is somewhat pessimistic. On average about 120 forwards will score 17+ goals in a season. 29 points falls a little short of top 6 production, but for a rookie playing 12 minutes a night on the 4th line it's very good. Top 6 doesn't mean what people think it means. Similar to AA in age, usage, and production. If you think AA is, or has the potential to be, a top 6 player, you should think the same of Anderson.

Not sure where you got that from, but it's wrong. Lidstrom had 307 points from 91-97.

I'm a fan from the '80s and I'd pick Lidstrom. Like GMR said, if we go back further, actually in to the '80s, then I'd agree with you. But in the last 25 years, Yzerman only played 14 of them, plus missed a ton due to injury in later years. I wouldn't go as far as Jacksoni and say there's no debate at all, but I'd definitely pick Nick. I think Vladdy is highly romanticized because of the injury. No doubt he was an excellent defenseman, but he didn't have the offensive skill to be on the same level as Lidstrom, plus he took a lot of penalties. And he was 30 at the time of the accident. Maybe he would have been like Nick or Chelios and stayed great into his late 30s or 40s, or maybe he would have been normal and had only a another handful of good seasons.

Not to say we should go after him, much less give up anything significant for him, but he had 17 goals and 29 points as a 23yo rookie playing 12 minutes a night. Maybe it was just a fluke being in a good situation in Columbus, but still. He looks to be more comparable to Athanasiou than the guys you mention.