Buppy

It wasn't schooling, or lack of smarts, that anyone was making fun of. It was that you were talking like some kind of expert when in fact you had never even heard of one of the top prospects. Even worse, you didn't even try to do any research when the kid was mentioned. You just said "Europe = stupid pick". That is literally the exact opposite of "dedication to learning all you can...". Aside from maybe the late-80s influx, it was always luck. Datsyuk and Zetterberg isn't what made our scouting good, nor is it limited to Europeans. What makes our scouting good is consistently above average results in finding and developing NHL caliber talent. No, but having a high level of passion for the sport does, and it's only natural that a large percentage of those that do will try playing at some point.

No, but the 3 seed could have a worse record than the 8, and the 2 could be as low as 6. You could also have the top 4 teams playing in one conference, and the bottom 4 playing in the other. And a finals matchup of the PT winner against the worst team in the playoffs (who could possibly be lower than 16th overall).

Even in the previous system it was possible for the team with the 2nd best record to be a 4 seed, and face the best team in the 2nd round. Also would have been possible (albeit unlikely) for the 2 and 3 seeds to be two of the worst teams in the playoffs. Personally, I like the divisional format, and I don't think a matchup like Caps-Pens is diminished at all coming in the 2nd round instead of the 3rd.

This thread exists solely as a means of comparing the Hawks to the Wings. But if you want to say they shouldn't be compared, then I agree. The teams are at different points in the cycle of contention. The Hawks are two years removed from a Cup win, and had the 3rd best record in the league. Anger is an appropriate response to be swept in the first round. The Wings are in the early stages of rebuilding after a prolonged period of success. We should have a different standard right now.

Lol. Yeah, Bowman is so angry he's not going to fire himself or his coach, but rabble, rabble, rabble, unacceptable!, rabble, changes!, rabble, rabble! Because it's not like changes happen every year to every team, and the nature whatever changes they make this year will almost certainly be indistinguishable from changes made in previous years, or changes made by any other team, including Detroit. But he'll get more credit, because angry words. Kind of hope I'm wrong though. If they do make any major changes it will almost certainly make them a worse team, people will shut up about them, and maybe Q would become available after next year.

Funny thing is Tippett is very much a skill player. Might have some gritty elements, but his speed, shot, and ability to find open areas are much more important. Reminds me of Iginla in a way. Sure, maybe he's tough, but it's all the other parts of his game that make him good. I don't think Tippett would be a bad pick at all. Wouldn't be my choice at 7, or maybe top 10 at all, but I wouldn't hate it either. He's got a lot going for him. I don't think we need goal scorers as much as we need goal creators. Not play-makers, per se, but guys who can generate offense. Starting with retrieving pucks in our own end, breaking out and transitioning into solid offensive zone possession, and making good plays whether it be a shot or setting up a teammate. I don't think Tippett fills that as well as MIttelstadt or Glass. Also think Liljegren, Valimaki, and Makar would be more valuable to us. I'd put Tippett a hair behind Suzuki, and a hair ahead of Pettersson, Tolvanen, Heiskanen and Foote. Not too impressed with what I've seen on Hague. OK for a second rounder, but he'll probably go late 1st.

No it wasn't. We drafted Primeau because it was 1990; almost 3 decades before Jagr became the #2 all-time scorer, and I'm guessing at least 3 centuries before humans will invent a way to perfectly predict the future.

You can say the same for all the teams out of the playoffs as well.

I'm torn. I want a defenseman, but it seems there's some questions with all of them this year. Not sure any are worth going 7th. There's probably a good chance either Mittelstadt or Glass will be available, and both are probably a better pick than any of the D. Some guys I really like are mostly projected around the middle of the 1st. Scouting reports on Suzuki have kind of a Tyler Johnson vibe. Valimaki and Foote are both intriguing. I wouldn't hate it if we were to trade down a bit, especially if Mittelstadt and Glass were both gone.

Everyone in the 3rd or lower is going to be a project. The closest you could get to a non-project would be someone who's almost-but-not-quite-certain to be the next Glendening. Also, try to remember that a prospect is not 2nd-tier, or off-the-board, or an experiment, or whatever just because you don't know who he is. Yeah, who am I kidding. We all know you'll be going apes*** about something or other this offseason.

So...the hockey world should just stop reporting news unless a kid is a sure thing? No more undrafted FA news. Hell, just stop reporting on the draft after the top 15 picks, most of those guys will never amount to anything anyway... Pretty much goes without saying that an undrafted FA is a longshot to be anything special, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing.

Conferences have been lopsided for the last 4 years. The addition of LV makes them less lopsided.

From some Twitter guy: "It's Be Careful Who You Fire Day. Mike Yeo eliminates Minnesota. Alain Vigneault eliminates Montreal. Todd McLellan eliminates San Jose."

Actually, they've lost in the first round both years since they started paying them that much. And I'm no doctor, but I doubt either of them would produce much of anything after we chopped them into pieces so they could also play defense and goalie.

Indifferent. Though if our goal is to focus on the future, I think we would be better served by trading players rather than plugging kids into spots at the bottom and making them fight each other. But if we're not considering trades, then I don't really care. There are pros and cons either way.

Wait, I thought we were sick of having young skill guys getting scratched and underused. I'm confused. Do other team's fans obsess this much over the least important parts of the roster? I guess it makes some sense to complain about the worst players on the team, but I would think we could be rational enough to understand how negligible an impact those moves will have. Bringing back Miller or Ott or someone similar, or filling that spot with a kid is completely irrelevant. It's not going to help or hurt anything. Put a better player in an insignificant role, and you're just wasting potential. Bertuzzi playing 50 games (and scratched for 30) as our 13th forward, or playing 50 in GR plus 20 in Det as an injury call-up isn't going to affect his development. If you're going to be scratching Sheahan and relegating Helm and Abby to the 4th line, when all of them have proven they can contribute much more significantly, you'd be better off doing whatever you can to just get rid of them and using the cap space on a FA that might actually do something. Or better yet if you think Svech can be a valuable top-9 player, you use one of the guys above him to try to help the defense. Scratching a kid with a history of solid 3rd-line level production is just inefficient. Either way, whether we plug the bottom of the roster with a kid or a cheap vet (that we might be able to flip for late pick) is just about the last thing we should be worried about.

Poll lacks the IDGAS option. Also, no good reason to write off Chicago permanently based on a couple poor runs.

Lol, You probably would have thrown Yzerman in on that Federko trade too, plus our 3rd and 4th rounders that year.

It may be true that most players could put up good numbers in the right situation, but that doesn't mean much. For one, the stats from recent seasons say that fairly few people can do much better, and likely even fewer who can do better without getting big minutes and good linemates (the 2nd part is hard to gauge, since pretty much all the better scorers do get big minutes/linemates). There's only one puck, so even if you somehow put together a team of stars most of them wouldn't do any better. Abby, in his two big years, was only our 6th best forward. Very few teams had anyone as good or better. Even if you are lucky enough to have 6 or more better players, you're better off spreading them over 3 lines and using players like Abby to fill in the other spots. And finally, $4.25M is not a particularly large cap hit. There are 205 players in the league at that or more. Probably more after this summer. This isn't 2005 anymore, where you should think you're getting a star player for $4M.

Barring an unexpected large cap increase, anything more than a "Vanek-type" would require moving out someone we already have. So it wouldn't really block anything. (Incidentally, that's part of the reason I think we shouldn't be desperate to free up cap space. At this point I'd rather have Ericsson's 3 years than someone else's 6.)

What's worse is that he apparently thinks the 31st pick (I guess by virtue of being the 1st pick in the 2nd round [though it would be 32nd now with Vegas]) will also give you a top of the line talent. It's only the guys from 2-30 that suck.

Technically it's 6 years, but with some trade options the last 4. But people need to stop crying about NTCs, they're practically meaningless. If a player is performing so bad that you really want to get rid of them, that is going to limit your trade options as much or more than a NTC. Nielsen's contract is fine. Standard fare for a FA of his level. It's not the contract anyone should object to, it was signing him at all given our situation.

Yeah, the coach who had some of the worst seasons in Columbus Blue Jackets history would be a way better option. Makes all the sense.

That's exactly my point. Now you just need to realize that your lack of interest (and resulting lack of knowledge) does not equate to a prospect's lack of potential.

Yes you do. There is only a small fraction of the information even available to you, and you don't even see all of that.