Buppy

Calgary gave up a 1st (12th-14th range IIRC) plus two 2nds to get him. The typical cost for moving up in the first round is a 2nd rounder. I'm not sure we have an asset that's worth that difference.

Lol, so sensitive. I didn't realize that you have been wrong so frequently in the past that my correcting you was becoming an irritating pattern. I guess my memory is clouded by all your embarrassing histrionics and rampant bigotry. I apologize if I've bothered you. I stand corrected on this one. The deal wasn't official until the 2nd, so I was confused. (Though the quote, "I didn't once look at Detroit and say I could have been there." doesn't seem to fit your story. But I concede regardless.) And OK, you're not upset about this guy specifically. You're just using it as a forum to vent your frustrations about our ability to sign free agents in general, because we used to get everyone. Like Roenick. Thanks for the clarification.

Story is bulls***, considering we traded for Hasek on June 30th and Roenick signed with Philly on July 2nd. And I don't know about "absolutely the best ufa". Mogilny, Robitaille, Hull, and Turgeon would argue with that. Also, you're highly over-rating Bishop. Also also hilariously over-concerned about our failure to sign an undrafted FA whose potential signing you considered facepalm-worthy two weeks ago. No amount of hypocrisy should stand in the way of a good bitchrant, I guess.

I think I have a pretty good idea of twhat this team needsa. Hence why I say we need things, like a #1 D and a #1 center, as much or more than "size". And I like Tippett by the way, as I've said before. He has a very high level of skill, which is much more important than his size (he's not even that big). He just wouldn't be my first choice. Pettersson wouldn't be either, I'm just not so myopic and bigoted that I'll dismiss a player because he's from a country I don't like. And I know you're not the biggest fan of math, but I don't really have to explain what majority means, do I? In the last 5 drafts, there have been 70 players selected by lottery teams. The vast majority of them are not significantly better/more promising than Larkin, Mantha, or AA, or some of our prospects. Sure, there are some stars or budding stars (mostly picked 1st overall)...just not that many. Buffalo has been s*** for a decade, finished worse than us this year even. Columbus has been pretty much s*** for their existence prior to this year. Same for Florida. Toronto s*** since the lockout year. Islanders have been irrelevant since Bossy, including the last 8 years since drafting Tavares. NJ is actually doing well, only missing the playoffs 6 of the last 7 years before getting a 1st overall. Tanking has never been the panacea some think it is, and it's now harder than ever to get the first overall pick. Deliberately making your team worse, and giving yourself that much more work to do, and possibly creating a losing culture...all for a very uncertain chance at a star, and even if you do get one (or more), very uncertain success. No thanks.

Stop trying to make "Holland pick" a thing. And he also says we need stars and we need a top defenseman. Despite your prejudices, we don't need Tippett any more than anything else. Less than most in fact. Personally, I think moving back a little would be a good move. Not sure if there would be anyone Carolina would want to move up for, but they have a bunch of 2nd and 3rd rounders. If we could do that, get Suzuki or Valimaki, then have a bunch of picks in the 2nd & 3rd, or use some to move back up.

Funny thing to say in a year when two teams who had worse odds (one significantly worse) than we did moved up. Lol, trade all the vets except the one who makes the biggest difference. There are two problems with "blowing it all up". One, losing doesn't automatically give you a great player. Even winning the first pick doesn't. And two, blowing it up means you have to do that much more to rebuild. Go that route you better plan on being bad for a long time, and there probably won't be any payoff either. Without missing the playoffs, we have added a number of young guys who are as good or close to the vast majority of those picked by lottery teams. and now we have a top 10 pick to work with. It takes a lot of luck to go from loser to contender. Trying to stay competitive, while drafting well and transitioning to the kids, is just as valid a rebuild strategy.

I will. Kucherov is full of s***. Stamkos and Hedman both recently signed big contracts. But Stamkos was hurt all year (after a very good start) and Hedman had his best season. Killorn had a career high in goals this year. Total points were down, but only slightly. Coburn seems to have had a pretty normal year. Vasilevskiy had a decent year. Stralman and Garrison had down years, but both are several years into their contracts. Johnson and Palat are in their last year. Filppula was in his next to last. And none of them were down all that much really. Callahan maybe, but would have made way more sense to say it last year, since he was injured most of this year. So unless he's saying Stamkos could have come back from his injury if he'd worked harder, the comment doesn't make much sense. Sounds like a bitter little ***** throwing his team under the bus because he's mad they didn't make the playoffs.

And I even forgot about Ericsson...

Not for first overall. It's like 7%, about 21% for a pick in the top 3. 23.3% is the odds for 7th. ~40 for 8th, ~15 for 9th, ~1% for 10th. Those are just estimates though. I don't think the exact odds have been given anywhere,

Probably right, but the PA has been kicked into submission in the last two negotiations. I wouldn't be all that surprised if the owners go looking for non-guaranteed contracts in some fashion in the next one. To be fair, he also said it about Kronwall (just as erroneously) and Nyquist (possibly some accuracy, though likely just coincidence).

Never said I did disagree. What I disagreed with is if whether or not we do should determine if a pick is right or wrong. You say it yourself, "no one knows for certain which players will boom or bust". So if you pick a player that "booms", and it's not based on something you knew for certain.... And as I've said multiple times, and you keep ignoring, there is skill in recognizing potential. But potential is only probability, not certainty. Sure, given enough picks, higher skill is likely to produce more success. But star players are so rare that skill does not significantly change the probability of selecting one with a later pick. That isn't the argument at all.

Racist

I'll tell Kucherov to f*** off too if he starts calling out individuals to whom it clearly doesn't apply just because of their nationality. In fact, I'll tell him to f*** off anyway, because I think he's full of s***. Players have s***ty years all the time, regardless of contract status. Attitude certainly can play a role, but blaming a contract is a cheap cop-out. Humans aren't that simple.

So basically this whole time you've been agreeing with me, you'd just prefer to call it an inexact science with a degree of uncertainty. Reread my second post. Skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting who will achieve it. An analogy: You might, through observing me, notice that I like jelly beans. If your observational skills are particularly sharp you might notice that I particularly favor purple jelly beans, and sometimes pink. But you can not with any significant certainty, accuracy, or repeatability determine which specific few jelly beans I'll pick out of a bowl of 200. That part is luck.

John Chayka? And yeah, I think a guy with years of managerial experience and also a 20+ year relationship with the Red Wings organization would be given a similar opportunity. Broadcasting I don't think is a fair example. The goal of broadcasting is ratings. It's reasonable to assume that a former player could generate interest (especially a popular one), plus there's also at least the illusion of expertise, which in TV is likely more important than actual expertise that no one knows about. But even in that there are plenty of examples of people from outside of hockey getting opportunities.

The best farmer in the world can't tell which seed will grow the tastiest fruit, but that doesn't mean that every dips*** that's ever eaten an apple should buy an orchard. So OK, every draft there are stars picked later in the draft. You're suggesting that the players that will become stars are absolutely certain to do so, and that this fact is knowable with sufficient skill. But at the same time they do fall later in the draft. Often times into the late rounds, meaning everyone in the league, including the team that eventually takes them, passes on them. Multiple times even, and often in favor of players who never make the NHL. How could that happen unless no one in the whole of the NHL had sufficient skill? So either it's not really a skill at all, or just not a skill that anyone actually has. Semantics. What I'm trying to say is that "the right pick" shouldn't be determined by whether or not that player goes on to become a star. In any given year there are 6 players drafted top 6 overall. More than 200 drafted 7th or later. Hardly a fair comparison.

Out of 35-ish positions in management/coaching/scouting (not counting medical and things like VP of finance) we have like 10-12 former NHL players. There's certainly a s*** ton more former players than that, especially if you include washout prospects like Holland. There is undeniably opportunity in the NHL, not to mention far more in lower levels, for those outside "the club". While it may be easier for a former player, I think that's no different from any other industry...who you know matters. But former player or not, I don't think a person is going to retain their position (much less move up the ranks) unless they show a high level of aptitude. Yeah, there are probably people outside the NHL who would be better in some position than someone in the league, but I don't think it's accurate to say "at the expense of the quality of work being put out" or suggest that NHL management/coaching is not elite. I don't think any industry is comprised entirely of only the absolute best, if for no other reason than people and industries are constantly changing. But this is all getting way far-afield. If you're trying to say the average fan is just as knowledgeable or competent as an average NHL employee, I would say it's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. We sit here commenting on this kid, or draft prospects, or whatever, as if we've done any scouting ourselves when all we've done is read pared-down-for-concise-publication versions of some actual scout's work, maybe watched some s*** quality highlight reel. By definition that makes us at best a pared-down-shadow of whoever provided that info.

I think you're looking at my comments the wrong way. Like I said, of course someone outside of hockey could have the skills to be successful. My point was that people who are likely to pursue careers in hockey (especially at the NHL level) are quite likely to have a high level of interest in hockey, and as such there's a good chance they have played at some level. Sure, maybe 1/3rd of the management/coaching/scouting positions are filled with former players, but that means 2/3rds aren't. If it's a "club", it's not all that exclusive.

Sorry if I offended you. Would you refer to power/toughness as "Black-style"? Can't really deny that most black players lean toward a tough/power game.

Franchise, elite, star...whatever you want to call it. Very few players in any given year are even NHL caliber players on draft day. Drafting is an evaluation of potential, not current ability. But potential won't always be reached. What a player can become is not necessarily what they will become. There are a lot more players who have star potential than there are players who will actually be stars. There is skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting the degree of achievement.

Well, not really that. 30-odd players in like 12 draft years...less than 2% of the players drafted. There really isn't a "right" decision in that regard. There are no franchise type players available, a lot of years there isn't even a franchise player at #1. There are a ton of players with franchise potential, but only a rare few will fulfill that potential. Many of those that do will be those showing few if any signs of even having that potential at draft time. The luxury of picking high is that you'll almost certainly have multiple options of players showing good signs of that potential, and there's a high chance that those players will at the very least become good. But there's no skill in picking stars, it's luck. Sure, you can be hopeful. Can even be hopeful at 15 or 25 or 45. Just don't expect too much.

Now you just need to work on realizing that "European" doesn't actually have anything to do with what you're talking about, so you'll stop sounding like a bigot and stop ignoring players you know nothing about other than where they come from.

I didn't say it does, but I would say it is a prerequisite. Those with the passion and interest needed to become a student of the game; to actually be an expert on talent analysis, or game theory, or what have you, are likely to have tried playing at some point. I don't buy the "NHL club" angle. Sure, former players naturally have connections, and are thus more likely to find an opportunity than a common fan, but I would argue that they also have a high aptitude. Not because they are former players, but because the same qualities that helped them become players help to make them better scouts/coaches/GMs/etc. Of course, those who aren't former players can have those same qualities as well. And there are a large number of people in management positions who weren't, which proves there is plenty of opportunity for those not in "the Club". There was never any assertion that a non-former-player or random fan can't become just as good or better than a pro, just a specific comment about a specific person. But in general, an average fan isn't going to be near as competent as someone doing it for a living, if for no other reason than the amount of time invested in gathering and analyzing all the information. You do something 40+ hours a week, every week, as your full-time job, you're likely to be well-informed at the very least. Spend an hour on a Saturday, or ******* around online at your real job hoping your boss doesn't catch you...then maybe you never even hear of one of the top prospects, and other people rightfully question your expertise.

Or Primeau was the third ranked prospect, and it was absolutely reasonable and rational to think he would be the better player. The idea that anyone knew in 1990 that Jagr would be what he ended up being, or even just better than Primeau, but ignored that because some other unrelated Czech player had had a drinking problem is such a load of bulls*** that just reading it fertilized my garden. His nationality may have been a small factor, though not really because of some Klima-inspired anti-Czech sentiment. More likely that he may have told teams other than Pittsburgh that he wouldn't come to the NHL. We all know that for you, European means "soft". Don't try to hide it, it's part of your character.

You're assuming that the format's "purpose" is only to create divisional matchups. I'd say it's to increase the likelihood of them, while also conceding to the fact that one division may be stronger than another.