Buppy

Yep, made it my priority just for you, because it is technically wrong. We were talking about him possibly being there before the draft. You can go back and look. And yes, I'm mostly talking about a minor point in your post. The rest of it is generic drivel, and even if it's accurate it doesn't mean anything because it's only been two months. I'm not going to watch what I'm guessing is probably less than an hour of his play and think it makes me qualified to make an accurate assessment of his future. His floor is where he is now, and his ceiling according to experts is "elite scorer". My point is it's ok to get excited about a kid's potential, and talk about kids optimistically. That's not over-hyping anything, nor does it justify "disappointment" after 16 games.

Your narrative is somewhat skewed. For one, let's stop acting like Zadina was a first overall pick. Despite the perfectly justified excitement, he wasn't expected to be a star from day 1. Pretty much all the scouting reports had him borderline NHL-ready at best, as is the case with almost every top player. He got some notice from world juniors, but by the draft he and Tkachuk were considered similar, a tier below Dahlin and Svechnikov. Kotkaniemi was a late riser, under the radar most of the season before getting a ton of hype close to the draft. Usually a guy like that most years. Kind of a stretch to say Zadina really "fell" in the draft. Two of the five taken ahead of him were always expected to be, a 3rd could have gone either way, and a 4th was a late-riser who was also selected largely because of position. The only guy that was a true reach was Hayton, who was also position based and taken ahead of several other players ranked ahead of him besides Zadina. There were also those defensemen who could have easily gone top-5 if a team had been more in need. To say anyone is "massively" anything after 10-20 games is ridiculous. Tkachuk has had a few good games. Kotka has been alright, but hardly a game-breaker. Svech was actually supposed to be a day-1 guy and he's only been OK. Even Dahlin isn't that remarkable. Zadina has played 16 games as a pro, and has 10 points. He's not really struggling. No more than any of the dozen or so players who might have been able to make an NHL roster this year, but fell short. Take a look at players drafted in the 3-6 range over the past couple decades. If you were expecting a star out of the gate, or even just an obvious future star, then you weren't paying attention. You let yourself get caught up in the hype you're now trying to project on everyone else. People who know so much more than you that you literally aren't even capable of understanding how much more they know have said Zadina has elite potential. He does. Odds are he won't make it. That's not a prediction, nor analysis, nor pessimism. It's just reality. Most prospects don't hit their potential. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get excited about potential, or should start doubting it if it isn't reached in the first couple months.

In the matrix of life, we're all just dots. Universal printing technology is very outdated. Too complicated, I got bored halfway through #3. I unvoted for you. Keep your platform simple: Genocide 2020

I feel like the appropriate response to this would be a video montage of Dustin Hoffman saying "Wrong" over and over again. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell no such thing exists, so now I'm disappointed in the world. Thanks a lot.

Makes no sense. How would I be "lined up" when I'm only one person? Use your head. I'd be more of a dot than a line; at least when viewed from an overhead angle. Also: Rude. And after I voted for you in the last election, too. Granted it was for a spot on the Oakland County Community College board of trustees, who, I know for a fact, do not get firing squad privileges, and you came in last, and CristopherReevesLegs is probably not even your real name, but still.

I also picked Yzerman, but in my version we still win the lottery. Then when he goes up to make the pick, he smiles and says, "We have a trade. The Detroit Red Wings trade Dylan Larkin, Dennis Cholowski, and the #1 pick to the Tampa Bay Lightning for Ryan Callahan!" Then he rips open his shirt to show his Lightning jersey. The face-turn was a setup the whole time! Hall and Nash come out from behind the curtain, cracking up. One of them spray paints a lightning bolt over the winged wheel. The crowd is stunned. Then the lights go out...silence for a moment, Seek and Destroy starts playing and the crowd erupts! Spotlight shines up into the rafters, and there's Holland, face painted, howling. Ziplines down to the stage, Hall, Nash, and Yzerman all freaking out. Holland has his hockey stick cocked back, ready to take them all out...then spins around and drops Bettman instead! Double-swerve! He rips open his shirt and he's also wearing a Lightning jersey. They all start attacking the other GMs, chasing them all off, then Tampa Bay drafts everyone for themselves. tBl for life!

Keith wasn't elite? Two-time Norris winner, two-time NHL 1st-team all-star, second in defense scoring from 2010-15, Conn Smythe winner Duncan Keith? Over the course of their Cup era, he was the best in the league. Cholo has wet dreams about one day being worthy to hold Keith's jock strap. Toews was better than he got credit for here, maybe not top-5 in the league, but arguably Zetterberg level. Larkin is maybe getting close, but not there yet. And we have no one remotely close to Kane. Nothing all that close to Sharp or Hossa for that matter. Or Seabrook. Or Crawford. I'd love to have Q, because he has an awesome resume. But you're stretching.

hype

It's accurate according to hockeydb. There were a few European players that were drafted from North American teams, but I don't think you're trying to argue that the OHL was an untapped market. But whatever, call it 30-35 if it makes you feel better. Doesn't justify calling Europe an untapped market when it had in fact been "tapped" 1100 times. Not mutually exclusive ideas. Again, the Wings numbers align with league averages. I believe they rise in the early 2000s, but a more logical explanation behind that (if it's even true) is prioritizing individuals with a record of success, rather than a geographical region. You're ignoring context. Again, you called it "exploring untapped markets" and then suggested China as the next hope to regain our "advantage". Pretend all you want that you weren't just repeating the same tired "Wings went to Europe before everyone else" myth, but we all know you were. "The thing that made the Red Wings not just a great team, but a powerhouse dynasty back when, was the willingness to explore untapped markets of talent in Europe back in the 90s and early 2000s. That rare advantage we had ended in the early 2000s and we started coming back down to earth around 2010. To boot, Nill and Yzerman both stole a lot of scouts on their departure." The part about losing scouts with Nill and Yzerman is an afterthought here. Pretty clear that the quality of our scouts was not the "advantage" you were referring to. You have noticed, I'm sure, that "What exactly is this advantage scouting oversees?" is a question. Asking what you meant by "advantage", since you were so adamant it wasn't what I inferred. I just wanted to make you lie, so I could call you on it, but we got there anyway so it's all good. Again, not mutually exclusive ideas.

Not sure why I'm going to bother since I see this is already moving from "exploring untapped markets" to "our scouts were good", but since you're both still kind of clinging to the idea that we were doing something other teams weren't, what the hell... Throughout the 90's, the Wings drafted 27 Europeans in 98 picks. A little below the league average of about 31%. 21 out of 115 in the 80s. A little above average (though ironically we had little success prior to 89). I don't think there's enough difference there to say we ahead or behind any curve. Likely just the way the drafts happened to play out, which would explain why we only took 3 out of 33 from 90-92. More importantly is the fact that there were more than 1100 Europeans drafted in those two decades, less than 50 by the Wings. There was nothing "untapped" about that market even by the mid-90s, much less late-90/early-00s as originally stated. Nor is there anything to suggest the Wings prioritized Europe in any meaningful way. No doubt Hakan and our other Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions, particularly after the emergence of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but that's not doing anything different. It's doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but better. That's basically what I'm arguing. To say we were looking to Europe in a way other teams weren't is to discredit to quality of our scouting.

... Ok, so what exactly is this "advantage scouting overseas", that required the rest of the league to catch up, and "do the same thing".

We never had an "advantage". In 98 when we drafted Datsyuk, there were 87 Europeans drafted. 1/3rd of the total. Similar to the ratios in recent years. Do people really think teams were drafting those guys without scouting? We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. That's it. Getting four good players in 02 was also lucky, and none in 01 was unlucky. Our scouting was maybe a bit better in general, but this "no one else was scouting Europe" nonsense is just another myth that will never die.

All of them at once obviously. Five goalies fighting for the same net? We'd score at will in the confusion. Plus when we won, it'd technically be five series wins. We'd get the Cup and already be in the second round next year.

Appreciated for what exactly? I can repeat myself too. But it's dinner time, so if you're going to keep this up, do me a favor and just pretend I keep doing it, at least until you think of an answer that isn't stupid. Thanks. You're a peach.

No one is exploiting offer sheets because as it stands the deck is heavily stacked against it. Has nothing to do with "class". As the rules stand, the offer sheet system is basically trading high draft picks for the right to drastically overpay an unproven kid. The only situation where it might be feasible is a decent secondary scorer that won't cost too much in pick compensation, but you think is about to break out into star status, but his current team doesn't think he will and is also up against the cap. And even then you need to right about the breakout for it to be a good move.

Appreciated for what exactly? His appreciatabilitiness? That's not even a word. So please explain exactly what it is we're supposed to be appreciating. Seems like you're talking about his play, based on the "continually outperforms the other goalies this fanbase swears by" and "continually beats out his rival backup" but apparently that's not it. (And since those comments aren't even true, I guess you should have some other reason....)

Ok, it's not about performance, it's about being appreciated... for performance, which it isn't about. But you're wrong anyway. 10-11 MacDonald outperformed him. 13-14 Gustavsson was only marginally below, and Mrazek better in his handful of games. The next two seasons Mrazek was better by a decent margin. Even last year Mrazek was about the same with the Wings. All in all, Howard has only been notably better in 4 out of 9 years, worse in 3, and 2 about the same. And Bernier and Howard have similar career numbers, with Bernier better recently aside from Jimmy's fluke 16-17 year. Stop clinging to s*** Howard did 6+ years ago. Even if he was unfairly criticized back then, and even if Bernier isn't any better, we should still be looking for a replacement.

No more than expected from a team without an elite goalie that's losing in the 1st and 2nd round. Then why'd you call everyone out for doing it? But you were just arguing that our support should be based on performance. You might have a point if the thread was just started, but this started before the season. By your own logic, we should have been Team Bernie. So why weren't you behind him when your logic says he deserved it, and are you going to switch allegiances if his stats surpass Howard's at some point?

Maybe not now, after several years of mediocrity. But he already was well above average early in his career, and that didn't happen. No one was rooting for Gustavsson or MacDonald or Conklin or even Osgood. When people hopped on the Mrazek bandwagon, he was performing significantly better than Howard. By your own logic, supporting Mrazek is exactly what we should have done. Bernier has also outperformed Howard in 4 of the last 5 seasons. What is so unjust about people thinking he'll continue to do so?

a dark bleed

i'm torn. On one hand, he's obviously not ready. If he could go to GR it'd be easy; probably would have started there. On the other, it's not like we have anyone else that's any good, and maybe the pressure will be good for him in the long run. I don't think the contract is really much to worry about. Doubtful he'll be a guy who jumps right from his ELC to a high dollar deal.

Not really. Howard may have gotten more blame than he deserved the playoff losses, but he's been below average in four of the last five year. Mrazek was outperforming him early. From 13-14 through 15-16, Mrazek had a .920 save%, tied for 16th among goalies to play 30 games. Howard over the same period had .908, tied for 52nd. Bernier has also outperformed Howard in four of the last 5 years. Even counting his good year, Howard is 43rd with a .911 save%. Mrazek may have flamed out, and Bernier may be on the same level, but if we're being honest Howard has been below average for many years, other than one partial season.

No. No it isn't. It's just double-shifting guys. Something literally every coach does on a regular basis, hence all the disparity in ice time between players. Like trying to say folding a slice of pizza so the front doesn't droop down is "advanced cooking".

hype hype up

Do you know the difference between a real post and fabricating an excuse to make a different offensive-sounding-name-joke? No. No you do not. Not even with visual aids.