Buppy

There's only 56 games. 20 goals this year is like 30 in a full season.
No one on the Wings will get covid Ottawa makes the playoffs Nielsen will have a bounce back year, score 25+ points, and end as our 2C.

Josh Ho-sang is not even a year older, has 24 points in 53 games, and cleared waivers. Svech has 4 in 20, makes $200k more, and is injured again. I'll be shocked if he's claimed. Highly unlikely he has any future here regardless. 
That said, 100% claimed by Carolina and hat trick Thursday.

.I might agree if we were looking at any kind of difficult decisions in our protection list. But right now the most difficult question is who do we sign to be the 2nd experienced forward exposed that we wouldn't mind keeping too much if Seattle doesn't take him.
And he didn't so much show he deserved a spot as he benefitted from weak and often injured competition. Technically, Libor Sulak also earned a spot out of camp a couple years ago. Now two years later Cholowski still needs weak competition to have a shot. That's not really earning anything.

Not at all why Ras was drafted. He was ranked 5th by NHLCS. Right behind Vilardi. He got a bad reputation because one guy picked out one advanced metric from one year and made a big deal about it. Maybe Vilardi would have been a better pick, but he was the only player available consistently ranked ahead of Ras, and he had many of the same question marks about his potential. Considering Ras's strengths also addressed notable team weaknesses, no one should be complaining about that pick.
Furthermore, Ras has put up numbers similar to what Mantha did at the same age, with the exception of at 19, Ras had an underwhelming season in the NHL while Mantha had a dominate year in juniors.
Mantha
17yo - QMJHL - 63gp - 22g - 51p .81ppg 18 - QMJHL - 67 - 50 - 89 - 1.33 19 - QMJHL - 57 - 57 - 120 - 2.11 20 - AHL - 62 - 15 - 33 - .53 Ras:
17 - WHL - 50 - 32 - 55 - 1.1 18 - WHL - 47 - 31 - 59 - 1.26 19 - NHL - 62 - 8 - 18 - .29 20 - AHL - 35 - 7 - 22 - .63 Ras is 5 months older, in relative terms, and so was able to start in the CHL a year earlier, which would explain the disparity in the first year. Shouldn't have much impact in the later years though. Of course, none of that means Ras will develop in the same way Mantha has since then though. It will be disappointing if he doesn't, doubly so if Vilardi turns out significantly better, But this does illustrate how profoundly expectations can be effected by players being in different situations. 

Gone for so long and the conversations have hardly changed at all. 
Cholowski's demotion last year, much like the year before, was likely to allow him to develop against a more appropriate level of competition. He wasn't effective in the NHL; playing in the AHL was better for him. Considering he really didn't improve at all from his first year to his second, and now hasn't played in 10 months, I wouldn't expect much this year. Maybe he'll surprise, but I won't hold my breath.
He has not been good offensively. 24 points in 88 games. Not even that good in the AHL. 25 points in 55 games. Dekeyser level offense .69 P/60 last year with 2:40/g PP time. For comparison, Daley (who you call one of the worst in the league) with less than a minute PP time per game scored .63 P/60. Staal and Stecher both produced better without any PP time worth mentioning. At even strength, Nemeth, Biega and Merrill all produced more. 
You made the same arguments about Smith and Sproul. Like once you label a player an offensive defenseman you'll say he's "good offensively" no matter how he performs. If he was actually good, he wouldn't have any problem beating out the likes of Daley or Biega or Merrill. That's why Hronek has stuck despite his own somewhat weak defense.
You like to say "be given every opportunity", but what you really mean is that he should be given a spot no matter what. You know there's nothing Staal, Merrill, Biega, or Lindstrom (or likely even Nemeth, Stecher, or Dekeyser) could do that would make you believe they deserve a spot over Cholowski. And you're against adding anyone you think could beat him out, like Vatanen. We can gift him a spot next year, no need to do so now when he's still waiver exempt. 
Granted, Vatanen isn't good enough to make a big deal about, but I do think we should make every reasonable effort to improve as much as we can. I personally think a major factor in last year being such an embarrassment was Yzerman writing-off the season before it started, and he's done essentially the same thing this year. Getting too used to losing, or even worse wanting to lose for a higher pick like most fans seem to want, is terrible for a franchise.

Lindstrom, one of his direct competitors, has been playing. The others are done developing so it's less of an issue for them. He's fortunate he doesn't have to compete against any of our other prospects for the time being, Maybe the time off won't hurt him, maybe it will.
Yes, Green had a terrible year that led to his retirement, and he put up similar numbers to Cholowski. Daley was also in that ballpark given the difference in ice time. Even in points per game there wasn't that big a difference. Staal produced as much last year with no PP time. Nemeth and Biega were both more productive at even strength, Merrill as well. Might have done better on the PP had they been given the chance. All of them suck offensively. "Whether or not that offense translates to the NHL" is not at all irrelevant. It is the entire argument. Everything about your argument is predicated on the idea that Cholowski is good offensively. He hasn't been up to this point. He's barely even been better than players who suck. 
You say "earn it", but at the same time say only 4 or 5 players should be ahead of him, and arguing against adding anyone else who might be better. I agree he should probably be ahead of Biega. Biega shouldn't have been resigned, and I don't think we should have traded for Staal either. I think we should have tried to get someone good. I think we should have kept Bowey (and still should). I think we should try to get Vatanen. With no pre-season there's limited opportunity to win a spot, but at the same time he has less competition, and could benefit from the taxi squad rule and the later AHL start, plus the almost intentionally weak roster. And with injuries there will be plenty of opportunities. Let's see Cholowski do something without PP time. Let's see him actually produce well in the AHL. Let's see more than one hot stretch of 11 games followed by two half seasons of sub-20 point play. Let's see more than the one season as a 19/20yo in juniors that you could actually call "good" offensively. You know, actually earning things.

Gone for so long and the conversations have hardly changed at all. 
Cholowski's demotion last year, much like the year before, was likely to allow him to develop against a more appropriate level of competition. He wasn't effective in the NHL; playing in the AHL was better for him. Considering he really didn't improve at all from his first year to his second, and now hasn't played in 10 months, I wouldn't expect much this year. Maybe he'll surprise, but I won't hold my breath.
He has not been good offensively. 24 points in 88 games. Not even that good in the AHL. 25 points in 55 games. Dekeyser level offense .69 P/60 last year with 2:40/g PP time. For comparison, Daley (who you call one of the worst in the league) with less than a minute PP time per game scored .63 P/60. Staal and Stecher both produced better without any PP time worth mentioning. At even strength, Nemeth, Biega and Merrill all produced more. 
You made the same arguments about Smith and Sproul. Like once you label a player an offensive defenseman you'll say he's "good offensively" no matter how he performs. If he was actually good, he wouldn't have any problem beating out the likes of Daley or Biega or Merrill. That's why Hronek has stuck despite his own somewhat weak defense.
You like to say "be given every opportunity", but what you really mean is that he should be given a spot no matter what. You know there's nothing Staal, Merrill, Biega, or Lindstrom (or likely even Nemeth, Stecher, or Dekeyser) could do that would make you believe they deserve a spot over Cholowski. And you're against adding anyone you think could beat him out, like Vatanen. We can gift him a spot next year, no need to do so now when he's still waiver exempt. 
Granted, Vatanen isn't good enough to make a big deal about, but I do think we should make every reasonable effort to improve as much as we can. I personally think a major factor in last year being such an embarrassment was Yzerman writing-off the season before it started, and he's done essentially the same thing this year. Getting too used to losing, or even worse wanting to lose for a higher pick like most fans seem to want, is terrible for a franchise.

Not at all why Ras was drafted. He was ranked 5th by NHLCS. Right behind Vilardi. He got a bad reputation because one guy picked out one advanced metric from one year and made a big deal about it. Maybe Vilardi would have been a better pick, but he was the only player available consistently ranked ahead of Ras, and he had many of the same question marks about his potential. Considering Ras's strengths also addressed notable team weaknesses, no one should be complaining about that pick.
Furthermore, Ras has put up numbers similar to what Mantha did at the same age, with the exception of at 19, Ras had an underwhelming season in the NHL while Mantha had a dominate year in juniors.
Mantha
17yo - QMJHL - 63gp - 22g - 51p .81ppg 18 - QMJHL - 67 - 50 - 89 - 1.33 19 - QMJHL - 57 - 57 - 120 - 2.11 20 - AHL - 62 - 15 - 33 - .53 Ras:
17 - WHL - 50 - 32 - 55 - 1.1 18 - WHL - 47 - 31 - 59 - 1.26 19 - NHL - 62 - 8 - 18 - .29 20 - AHL - 35 - 7 - 22 - .63 Ras is 5 months older, in relative terms, and so was able to start in the CHL a year earlier, which would explain the disparity in the first year. Shouldn't have much impact in the later years though. Of course, none of that means Ras will develop in the same way Mantha has since then though. It will be disappointing if he doesn't, doubly so if Vilardi turns out significantly better, But this does illustrate how profoundly expectations can be effected by players being in different situations. 

Gone for so long and the conversations have hardly changed at all. 
Cholowski's demotion last year, much like the year before, was likely to allow him to develop against a more appropriate level of competition. He wasn't effective in the NHL; playing in the AHL was better for him. Considering he really didn't improve at all from his first year to his second, and now hasn't played in 10 months, I wouldn't expect much this year. Maybe he'll surprise, but I won't hold my breath.
He has not been good offensively. 24 points in 88 games. Not even that good in the AHL. 25 points in 55 games. Dekeyser level offense .69 P/60 last year with 2:40/g PP time. For comparison, Daley (who you call one of the worst in the league) with less than a minute PP time per game scored .63 P/60. Staal and Stecher both produced better without any PP time worth mentioning. At even strength, Nemeth, Biega and Merrill all produced more. 
You made the same arguments about Smith and Sproul. Like once you label a player an offensive defenseman you'll say he's "good offensively" no matter how he performs. If he was actually good, he wouldn't have any problem beating out the likes of Daley or Biega or Merrill. That's why Hronek has stuck despite his own somewhat weak defense.
You like to say "be given every opportunity", but what you really mean is that he should be given a spot no matter what. You know there's nothing Staal, Merrill, Biega, or Lindstrom (or likely even Nemeth, Stecher, or Dekeyser) could do that would make you believe they deserve a spot over Cholowski. And you're against adding anyone you think could beat him out, like Vatanen. We can gift him a spot next year, no need to do so now when he's still waiver exempt. 
Granted, Vatanen isn't good enough to make a big deal about, but I do think we should make every reasonable effort to improve as much as we can. I personally think a major factor in last year being such an embarrassment was Yzerman writing-off the season before it started, and he's done essentially the same thing this year. Getting too used to losing, or even worse wanting to lose for a higher pick like most fans seem to want, is terrible for a franchise.

Not at all why Ras was drafted. He was ranked 5th by NHLCS. Right behind Vilardi. He got a bad reputation because one guy picked out one advanced metric from one year and made a big deal about it. Maybe Vilardi would have been a better pick, but he was the only player available consistently ranked ahead of Ras, and he had many of the same question marks about his potential. Considering Ras's strengths also addressed notable team weaknesses, no one should be complaining about that pick.
Furthermore, Ras has put up numbers similar to what Mantha did at the same age, with the exception of at 19, Ras had an underwhelming season in the NHL while Mantha had a dominate year in juniors.
Mantha
17yo - QMJHL - 63gp - 22g - 51p .81ppg 18 - QMJHL - 67 - 50 - 89 - 1.33 19 - QMJHL - 57 - 57 - 120 - 2.11 20 - AHL - 62 - 15 - 33 - .53 Ras:
17 - WHL - 50 - 32 - 55 - 1.1 18 - WHL - 47 - 31 - 59 - 1.26 19 - NHL - 62 - 8 - 18 - .29 20 - AHL - 35 - 7 - 22 - .63 Ras is 5 months older, in relative terms, and so was able to start in the CHL a year earlier, which would explain the disparity in the first year. Shouldn't have much impact in the later years though. Of course, none of that means Ras will develop in the same way Mantha has since then though. It will be disappointing if he doesn't, doubly so if Vilardi turns out significantly better, But this does illustrate how profoundly expectations can be effected by players being in different situations. 

Gone for so long and the conversations have hardly changed at all. 
Cholowski's demotion last year, much like the year before, was likely to allow him to develop against a more appropriate level of competition. He wasn't effective in the NHL; playing in the AHL was better for him. Considering he really didn't improve at all from his first year to his second, and now hasn't played in 10 months, I wouldn't expect much this year. Maybe he'll surprise, but I won't hold my breath.
He has not been good offensively. 24 points in 88 games. Not even that good in the AHL. 25 points in 55 games. Dekeyser level offense .69 P/60 last year with 2:40/g PP time. For comparison, Daley (who you call one of the worst in the league) with less than a minute PP time per game scored .63 P/60. Staal and Stecher both produced better without any PP time worth mentioning. At even strength, Nemeth, Biega and Merrill all produced more. 
You made the same arguments about Smith and Sproul. Like once you label a player an offensive defenseman you'll say he's "good offensively" no matter how he performs. If he was actually good, he wouldn't have any problem beating out the likes of Daley or Biega or Merrill. That's why Hronek has stuck despite his own somewhat weak defense.
You like to say "be given every opportunity", but what you really mean is that he should be given a spot no matter what. You know there's nothing Staal, Merrill, Biega, or Lindstrom (or likely even Nemeth, Stecher, or Dekeyser) could do that would make you believe they deserve a spot over Cholowski. And you're against adding anyone you think could beat him out, like Vatanen. We can gift him a spot next year, no need to do so now when he's still waiver exempt. 
Granted, Vatanen isn't good enough to make a big deal about, but I do think we should make every reasonable effort to improve as much as we can. I personally think a major factor in last year being such an embarrassment was Yzerman writing-off the season before it started, and he's done essentially the same thing this year. Getting too used to losing, or even worse wanting to lose for a higher pick like most fans seem to want, is terrible for a franchise.

Not at all why Ras was drafted. He was ranked 5th by NHLCS. Right behind Vilardi. He got a bad reputation because one guy picked out one advanced metric from one year and made a big deal about it. Maybe Vilardi would have been a better pick, but he was the only player available consistently ranked ahead of Ras, and he had many of the same question marks about his potential. Considering Ras's strengths also addressed notable team weaknesses, no one should be complaining about that pick.
Furthermore, Ras has put up numbers similar to what Mantha did at the same age, with the exception of at 19, Ras had an underwhelming season in the NHL while Mantha had a dominate year in juniors.
Mantha
17yo - QMJHL - 63gp - 22g - 51p .81ppg 18 - QMJHL - 67 - 50 - 89 - 1.33 19 - QMJHL - 57 - 57 - 120 - 2.11 20 - AHL - 62 - 15 - 33 - .53 Ras:
17 - WHL - 50 - 32 - 55 - 1.1 18 - WHL - 47 - 31 - 59 - 1.26 19 - NHL - 62 - 8 - 18 - .29 20 - AHL - 35 - 7 - 22 - .63 Ras is 5 months older, in relative terms, and so was able to start in the CHL a year earlier, which would explain the disparity in the first year. Shouldn't have much impact in the later years though. Of course, none of that means Ras will develop in the same way Mantha has since then though. It will be disappointing if he doesn't, doubly so if Vilardi turns out significantly better, But this does illustrate how profoundly expectations can be effected by players being in different situations. 

The look of a young man who just realized his paychecks are going to be less than 1/10th of what they were last year...

FIFY

Cap era: those three plus Zetterberg. Including pre-cap, Yzerman, Feds, Shanny, Hasek, and Cujo all did in at least one year.  

Still thinking short-term with your fixation on adults. #Peoplewhoalreadyexististhepast #Condomstapledtoalistofpickuplinesisthefuture

That's dumb. If the Keller deal were to set the market, then any good players would cost just as much. Can't be a cheapskate, trading away anyone good before you have to pay them, and expect to build anything. If the market says our guys would cost more than we think, all it would mean is that maybe we'd have to get rid of a bad contract or two in order to sign a good UFA or two.
Beyond that, Keller just turned 21 and has 114 points in 167 games. Larkin is comparable, not the other guys. In fact he's well ahead of Larkin's production at that age. If anything, this deal should keep the cost of our guys down, since none of them are anywhere near as good.
Larkin signed for 5 years and could hit UFA before his 27th birthday. Keller gave up 3 extra years of his prime, and has performed better at this point. It's a risky deal, but not necessarily a bad one, and could easily be a huge bargain.
At their age, long-term deals for our kids probably wouldn't get you any appreciable discount. May even cost more. Looking for a new contract at 34 would be much tougher than at 30. They could very well ask for a premium if they're giving you pretty much the rest of their career.

I'm perplexed by "helment". Three times in one post, so he really thinks that's how it's spelled. I don't understand how that can happen.

I for one do not think Mantha is about to break out, and I still think it would be a s*** trade (depending on the other pieces of course). Risto is a good scorer (at least on the PP), but not a very good defenseman overall. Buffalo has been the worst team in the league with him, so obviously he's not making any big impact despite his offense. 
Sign Gardiner if we really want a bad defensemen who can score, or better yet try to get someone good next summer. It's one thing to trade a 4th for crap we could get for free, giving up a good piece like Mantha (or in reality Mantha+) would be the worst move yet for Yzerman.

Only good joke in the whole thread. Reddit really has lost its edge.

It's a thin line between winning and losing. We had 40-odd one-goal games last year. Probably close to 60 if you add in two-goal games where we allowed an empty net. Small improvements, or even just luck, could make a big difference, as could small regression. We could have the worst record in the league, or be on the playoff bubble. 
We're probably a little worse on paper, but i think we'll see some guys step up and a healthier, more consistent defense. Marginal improvement, 80-85 point range, well out of the playoffs but too high to have a good shot at a top-3 pick. 

Nothing to get excited about obviously, but I'll take a plug who can score 20 points over a plug who can only score 10. 

Nothing to get excited about obviously, but I'll take a plug who can score 20 points over a plug who can only score 10. 

You all know we did have a strength and conditioning coach prior to this, right? This isn't some new innovation here, literally about as mundane a move as you can get. Also, I don't think that post is even accurate. From the online job posting, it seems Barwis is the owner of the firm he hired to find a coach for him. 
He basically had his secretary make a phone call to hire an outside service provider, and people think it's exciting. There's going to be a rash of heart attacks if he ever makes an actual good move.

You're talking a fairly wide range of results. Finishing 9th then getting the 15th OA pick is still missing the playoffs. But putting that aside and assuming we're only talking about finishing near the bottom and getting a top-5 pick vs being a wild card and losing in the first round, you still have to look beyond just the result. Why we make or miss the playoffs is much more important than whether.
I can't agree with the "sucking now will make us better later" idea. The team is going to have a bunch of players at or near their prime. Players who we would expect to be contributors, to a greater or lesser degree, to any competitive iteration of the team in the future. If we "suck", it would likely be because several players who we need to be good, weren't. And that's probably worse for our long-term outlook than whoever we'd draft at #4 would be good for it. Conversely, if we make the playoffs it would likely be because those players perform even better than what we expect. Also better long-term than our 1st pick would be.
I want our younger players to do well, not just in terms of scoring points (particularly if 1/3rd of those points are the result of just a handful of big games), but also in learning how to impact games. Learning how to win. Obviously that would mean actually doing some winning. So if it's a choice between being mediocre, missing the playoffs, and picking 12th, or being a bit better mediocre, making the playoffs, and picking 18th I'd take the latter every time.