Buppy

That may be true, but looking at our situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see our pick in the lineup if it's a forward. We currently have 10 forwards signed, plus AA and Tatar as RFAs. That leaves two forward spots to fill, and probably not a lot of cap space to do it with, plus the possibility of losing a forward in the expansion draft. Our top prospects right now are Svechnikov, Smith, and Bertuzzi. I don't think that's a very high bar for a new kid to get over. I'm not actually expecting our pick to make the roster, but I'm not dismissing the possibility either. Even if we end up late in the top 10 and take a kid who wouldn't normally be considered ready.

Hronek can play in GR. Smith has to go back to junior for one more year.

Teams don't part with 1st-rounders easily. When they do it's usually done at the deadline. Trades made around draft time are usually moves up/down a few spots. Trades like you want are rather rare. Like I said, if some team was willing to give up a first for Nyquist I'd consider it. But I wouldn't get my hopes up, and I'd rather try to get some defensive help. A pick wouldn't be my first choice of return. As for Dekeyser, I think we probably don't agree about what kind of player he is, so probably not worth discussing. But you need more than one good defenseman.

I think it's optimistic to think you could get a 1st. Probably also that we could use them to trade up. And even if we did both, it's pretty optimistic to think that whomever we then drafted would turn out any better than either of those guys. I wouldn't be opposed to trading Nyquist or Tatar (or even both depending on who we draft, and where our other prospects are at) for defensive help, maybe even for a pick if someone was dangling a decent 1st-rounder and there was a kid I liked still available. Dekeyser I wouldn't move for anything I think we could actually get (unless we were able to flip Nyq/Tatar for some major help on D). I haven't been too impressed with any of our kids this year. And what would we do with that cap space? Clear a bunch of cap then throw a fortune at Shattenkirk, only to immediately start bitching that we need to dump him so we can go after the next guy? We're not going to turn the team around with UFAs. Not likely to turn the team around overnight either. We don't need to desperately dump cap, especially not cap that will be gone within three years anyway. While that's true that we couldn't just force him to IR, he does have chronic knee issues. I'd think any doctor would say playing further poses a significant risk of further damage. I think if he were decide he didn't want to play anymore, we'd have no problem getting LTIR for him.

I don't want him to score. This is 0-16 Lions, so-bad-it's-good level of futility. Scoring would just turn it into regular suck.

The bolded annoys me too, mostly because I think it's just Kenny playing spin doctor. It's something I think he does too much. Fans aren't going to be appeased by words anyway, so I don't know why he bothers. But he isn't actually wrong. Keep in mind that Tatar and Jensen were drafted in 2009. 8 years ago. It does take 10+ years, just not 10+ more years from where we already are (unless you're talking tear apart everything we already have and start over). That said, aside from maybe some specifics regarding certain players you may not care for, your plan is more or less what we're already doing. But I would say that whomever we draft this year could very well be a part of the team next season, and I would hope if we're getting rid of Dekeyser and Nyquist it would be to add something to the team besides "futures" that will maybe develop into the next DK/Nyq in a few years. Especially since when your 3 years are up, Kronwall/Ericsson will likely be done (possibly Zetterberg too).

Let's not get carried away. None of this is a particularly accurate reflection of anything that has actually happened. Sproul got scratched a lot. There's also a lot of numbers that say that's the right choice. Ouellet has also been scratched a bit, even though his numbers are generally good. Marchenko too had some good numbers, and he was waived. Miller (and Ott when he was here) were scratched often. Miller was waived and sent to GR. Scratching Mantha likely had nothing to do with defense, considering he's been no worse than many others in that regard (and has the best advanced numbers on the team). Same goes for AA earlier this year. Just like with Babcock, the whole idea of this obsessively defensive coach who's killing our offense is poorly supported by both logic and actual fact. Our offensive struggles are far more likely the result of poor offensive systems (and poor execution) rather than an over-commitment to defense or defensive players. The generally poor quality of our defensive play is likely more to blame as well. It is fans trying to over-generalize and over-simplify leading to these false conclusions, which they then criticize for being so illogical or inconsistent. Never occurs to anyone that maybe the basic premise of their criticisms, or the speculations which usually serve to support them, might be flawed. I would argue that the entirety of the NHL is rooted in playing defensive hockey, and that is why scoring has generally been trending down since the 80's. Even with rule-changes being made to try to increase scoring, coaches adapt and goals start going down again. The secret isn't to not play defensive hockey, it's learning how to score while doing it.

While all the Draper/Maltby/organizational-philosophy-on-scouting-and-promoting-former-players talk is no doubt interesting in a way, I feel I should point out that the specifics have no actual foundation in reality. Draper is an assistant to Holland, not a scout. Maltby is a pro scout, providing input on potential trade and FA targets, and scouting upcoming opponents. Very different role than an amateur scout, who provides input on potential draft selections. Beyond that, the simple fact that the majority of scouts around the league were never anything at the NHL level is indisputable proof that what kind of NHL player someone was is completely irrelevant. This is how false narratives start. Random musings, lacking any substantial analysis and more often than not lacking simple fact-checking...then some fan eager for something or someone to blame picks it up and runs with it.

By what standard? Because by any reasonable standard of what should be expected of players where we've picked, we have been, as usual, above average. Well, in direct response to LW you said (paraphraising) "I agree, he shouldn't draft Hischier". Seemed to me implying that you consider him an "experiment" pick.

In what way would Hischier be "off the board"? He's pretty much the consensus #2, and I've seen him ranked ahead of Patrick as often as behind Vilardi or Tippett. Similar for Liljegren. And for LW, and others of like mind; Cholowski wasn't really an off-the-board pick either. Despite the attempt to create yet another dips*** Holland-sucks-meme, there is no such thing as "one of his "experiment" picks". Cholowski was a late riser, ranked as a mid-round pick for much of the year, but moved up to borderline first-round by draft time. And he was the top-ranked defenseman available. Funny how people constantly ***** about our defense, and how we have no good defense prospects, and we need to draft a defenseman no matter what...then when that very thing happens, we draft by position rather than by ranking, everyone loses their minds over it.

You do realize that this statement is, in fact, pure speculation.

Thought it would be pretty obvious when I asked what you were pissed about that I was referring to your attitude on the subject. But whatever. While it is a fact that the Wings could have prevented Datsyuk from playing in the KHL (or at least could have if the KHL was willing to comply), that is not the same thing as being able to force him to stay with the Wings. So again, he had no real obligation to play for the Wings. It's the "not playing for the Wings" part that hurt us, not that he went to play in the KHL. I don't see any difference in playing in the KHL or doing any job outside of playing the NHL, or just sitting on his ass all day. So I don't see any more reason to be upset about Datsyuk leaving than I did about Rafalski. Also, using the threat of barring him from the KHL in a negotiation doesn't mean anything. Who knows what would have actually happened if Datsyuk had said, "I'm going to Russia regardless, so do what you will". Somehow I doubt the organization would have followed through on the threat if they knew he was gone either way.

If he had the option to not play for the Wings, then he obviously had no obligation to play for the Wings. The two are mutually exclusive. That the Wings could have been spiteful, or said they would in order to negotiate Datsyuk staying an extra year, really doesn't mean anything. Whether Datsyuk leaving was "a dick move" or not is subjective. There are no "facts" to point out in that regard.

So you acknowledge that Datsyuk had no actual obligation to continue playing for Wings...what exactly are you pissed about then? That the Wings, who were "screwed" either way, chose not to be spiteful?

Another example of a silly fan jizz-fest over a young guy whose greatest virtue is that he hasn't been around long enough for fans to turn on him. Ericsson, Helm, Abby, Leino, Smith, Nyquist, Tatar...remember when it was such a crime when those kids were left in the minors? Now they're the s***ty vets we wish we could get rid of. People turning on Mrazek, Dekeyser, and even Larkin now. The next thing is always the better thing. Hell, last year people were already about to give up on the current kids in favor of Russo/Hicketts. I'm sure within a year or two we'll be back to gazing longingly at the horizon waiting for the next wave. Fact is the Wings do a great job of drafting and developing players, and putting young kids in situations to be successful. Maybe too good. Even without tanking for high picks, or selling for a high number of picks, we've produced more talent than we've had room for. Many have done so well starting out that it created unrealistic expectations for what they'd become, and/or made people believe that since they were successful they would have been equally so at any time, as if development doesn't matter at all. (Except for Jurco, who was obviously brought up too soon since he wasn't as successful, but if he had been it would have meant he was brought up too late...) Maybe not perfect; but no one is, has been, or ever will be. Sad that we can't appreciate what the organization does well because we're so consumed with how things might have hypothetically been done better.

Coreau will not be waiver eligible until next season. It was Jensen who had the 10 game limit. He will now have to pass through waivers to be sent down.

Just what we need, our PP coach taking over everything. Wouldn't getting players to buy into the system, and getting them motivated to play, be considered one of the primary aspects of coaching?

Frank and #9. Someone else after I responded too. And I have no problem with anyone calling him out. Only with people going over the top with the criticism. Labeling someone as "cancerous" after a single incident is over the top, in my opinion.

Not excusing anything. I said it was unprofessional. I just don't think that's any big deal, and concluding that he's a prima donna or a drama queen, or saying we should trade him over it is over-reacting. Nor am I justifying anything regarding Mantha, because there's nothing to justify. And I'm not against Mantha either, nor ever have been. His first season in GR was disappointing. No other way to put it. Acknowledging that doesn't make it some terrible attack on the kid or an attempt to humiliate him. A disappointing first pro season. Happens all the time. I'm sure even to guys who go on to have great careers. It's no big deal, and neither was talking about it. Fans are the only ones who made a big deal of the statement. Many argued that his season wasn't disappointing, and expectations were just too high, and then ironically those same people got mad again when Holland said basically that we shouldn't expect too much from Mantha. If Mantha had anything to be embarrassed by (and I don't think he did) it was that what Holland and Devellano said was true, not that they said it.

It didn't really, people just over-reacted to some (true) statements made about him from Devellano and Holland. Much like people are over-reacting to this news. He got pissed that the team chose to go with a guy who had one (poor) NHL game over him. Acted a bit unprofessional about it. Not a big deal and I'd bet stuff like that happens far, far more often than we hear about. But when people get down on a player they start looking for anything they can find to criticize. Mrazek could say he likes puppies, and 40 people would post the pic of that "Mrazek hates puppies" sign, and only 38 of them would be joking. 6 more people would be offended by his dislike for kittens. Fandom at it's fandomest.

Except that is essentially what he means by saying we should probably expect less. He just added, "but hey, try to look on the bright side." It doesn't matter what he says. You can lie to yourself and pretend there's some particular turn of phrase that's going to make you happy, but there isn't. If he says we need stars, as he has many times, or we're trying to find a defenseman, or whatever...it just changes the rants to "well then do it already" or you whine that he didn't spell out some foolproof plan in exacting detail. We're in transition, no matter what term anyone wants to use to describe it. No one has ever denied it or tried to hide it. Your mistake is in thinking that because this is where we are now, it's because we want to be here and we're going to stay here forever. Lower expectations now doesn't mean permanently lower. That's just you reading too much into things.

Lol. I disagree with you so I must like to watch the team lose. Please keep the veiled insults to yourself. Sure, if the only goal was to measure variance, SD would be great. But you're trying to evaluate a goalie. So what exactly does the variance tell you in that regard? It's not writing anything off. Maybe I should have left the "probably a loss" part out or said if the team wins it isn't because of that goalie. Point is there isn't a meaningful difference in that range. And the point about getting pulled early is all the more reason to look beyond simple variance. One fluke game can have a significant impact on even a very large sample. Or the same impact could come from several games. You have to look deeper to understand. Data from 2014-15 through this year: Shots Against <20 20-26 27-35 36-40 >40 % of Games 4.9% 26.7% 49.3% 12.9% 6.2% Goals Against 1 2 3 4 5+ Point% 93.7% 74.0% 46.6% 24.6% 9.1% ~89% of games see between 20-40 shots allowed, and almost half are 27-35. So again, a goalie with a 95% save% will almost always be allowing 1 or fewer goals. There's no point in differentiating anything because the practical result is almost always the same. Similarly, a save % below 85% is almost always (~95%) going to be 4+ goals in a full game. ~73% of the time even it would be 5+ goals. Or it means getting pulled early. Either way, it's not something you want from your goalie. Again there's not much point in the difference. But here's the full list anyway: 100.00% *13.6%(9.6) 10.4% 97.00% 4.8% 8.2% 96.00% 7.2% 13.4% 95.00% 6.4% 6.5% 94.00% 2.4% 6.1% 93.00% 8.0% 6.9% 92.00% 10.4% 5.2% 91.00% 5.6% 5.2% 90.00% 8.8% 6.1% 89.00% 5.6% 3.5% 88.00% 2.4% 6.1% 87.00% 3.2% 4.8% 86.00% 1.6% 2.6% 85.00% 3.2% 2.2% 84.00% 4.0% 3.0% 83.00% 0.8% 1.3% 82.00% 0.8% 2.2% 81.00% 3.2% 0.4% 80.00% 0.8% 2.2% 70.00% 3.2% 3.5% Below 4.0% 0.4% *the number in parentheses is complete game shutouts Semantics.

And that's a lot of cap going toward your goalies, and no spot for someone who might be even better than either. All for the sake of maybe a few more points during a rebuild?