PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Uh.....no. This year Lindtrom, Zablocki, Fraser, Adams, and Webb are all righties. That's 5 out 11. That was clearly a deciding factor.

Happy with this deal. He got less than Marchenko got a couple years ago(1.45) which, like I said in the thread guessing at these deals, was a close parallel for their situations.

So how long before Price is traded to Nashville? At least I think that's how things work when you sign a huge contract in Montreal.

You can disagree with the #9 pick, but let's not set these other teams as a pinnacle of intelligent drafting. I'm sure all have made picks that would earn your ire: For example I'll just look at some of Chicago's picks near the #9 position that would get similar or harsher criticisms: Chicago picked Kyle Beach with #11 in 08 - he's never played a game in the NHL. He had known injury and concussion issues and on-ice discipline issues when drafted. In 2000, they picked Yukubov and Yurobyev with the #10 and #11 picks both only played about 50 NHL games. In doing so, they passed on Orpik who was higher ranked and fell to 18. P.S. before someone cries foul for hindsight being 20/20, I made sure to judge choices on the basis of the criticisms/problems these picks would have had at the time. As for the Daley pickup, I'm warming to it. Hadn't seen a whole lot of him except this playoffs and in a few Wing games. The highlight video that Kickazz posted was pretty impressive. I'll wait to hear our injury situation before I'm really sure about it.

I just put lines lazily to help remember all the players, haha. I think that Tat-Z-Man is pretty set and AA-Nielson-Helm is one we saw a lot and worked well (though Vanek in place of Helm was probably better). I think if you swap Abby and Shea in my lines, it's pretty good, but that Larkin line would seem a bit weak to me. Oops, guess I was counting injured guys. In that case, I could see Frk and either Lashoff or McIlrath as the extra guys In summary, Canada Day: Drinking was involved.

My guess is: Tat-Z-Man Ny-Lark-Shea AA-Nielson-Helm Abby-Glen-Bert Witko (scratch) Daley-Green DD-Jensen E-XO Kronwall (IR), Sproul (IR) Howie, Mraz (doghouse) Coreau (waived and lost)

Except that we don't how long the problem is around. Maybe he knows Kronwall won't play at all this year. Sproul had ACL surgery. Recovery from that takes forever and some guys aren't the same if it's a significant tear. And after this year, we could have decided not bring back Green. I'd still prefer our prospects, but this one makes more sense with that context.

It makes a bit more sense since I've read all 3 of Kronwall (knees), Ericsson (surgery) and Sproul (ACL Surgery) are questionable for the start of the season. We could have been starting with: Dk-Green Jensen-XO _____-_____ _____ I think I would want to see those spots filled with Russo and some collection of McIlrath Lashoff, Renouf. If there's still room for 2 new guys to cycle in, I'm feeling better about. Really? No one on that list? You have to be kidding to think that Draisaitl, a 77 pt guy, has little effect on how his team is doing. Their turn around isn't all McDavid. Switching coach, goalie, half your team must have some effect. Anyway, I'm not saying he's not the main impetus, but you said just adding "1 player" like he's the only reason.

Rinaldo made 58 million last year to play football.These sports bring in a lot of revenue. Stars are responsible for a lot of that.

I just don't get how we're signing anyone. Capfriendly already has the deal and says we have 4.467,455 in cap space. How are we going to fit Tatar, XO and AA into that? Even if Kronwall is done and E isn't ready for the start of the season, pretty sure we have to meet the cap at the beginning of the year before sending them to LTIR or IR.

Well, Nyquist got 4.75 and that was 2 years ago. I think you got to be prepared for 5 or higher, if it's a similar 4 year deal. If it's a longer deal like the article guessed (6 years) It might be lower end of that, though. The only counter I can think of for Holland to cite in negotiations, is that Nyquist signed after 1.5 years in the league - a time which included that crazy stretch where he had the most GPG in the league.

Khan says it like it's a fact: "They lost center prospect Tomas Nosek to the Vegas Golden Knights in the expansion draft and elected not to re-sign veteran winger Drew Miller. They will add a defenseman and need two more forwards even after Tatar and Athanasiou are in the fold." http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2017/06/detroit_red_wings_hoping_to_si_1.html Hope one of the forwards is Bertuzzi and the other is one the low risk/high reward type: Grigorenko/Yakupov.

This past year, Z definitely proved some doubters wrong (me included) who were on the side of moving him to the wing. If Mantha continues his path and Tatar's shoulder is back to normal, that will be a great top line to watch next year.

Totally forgot about that. The cap would have to go above 85 mill for McDavid's caphit to be a comparable % of the cap to Crosby's 1st deal in the first year they took effect. Damn Sportsnet for their bad fact checking!!! There have been deals that aren't that far of percentage wise. Ovechkin's 9,538,462 was 16.8% of the 08-09 cap. McDavid's rumoured number is probably the highest % of the cap, though. Looking at this stuff suggests what I orginally thought: McDavid's number should be a bit lower unless you think he's a better player than OV and Crosby that stage of their careers.

I originally posted that info in another thread. It was a claim from this sportsnet article: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/connor-mcdavids-new-contract-extension-makes-sense-everyone/ They say Crosby's 2nd deal (13-14) was 17.3% of the cap (64.3). that seems to be wrong, though. It's 13.5%. The only way you get their number is if you use the cap number from the year before Crosby's 1st deal took effect. For the actual comparison between their first years of crosby's 1st deal and Mcdavid's rumoured number, it's: Crosby's 1st big deal (08): 8.7 mill = 15.3% of 56.7 mill (salary cap) McDavid's 1st big deal?: 13.25 mill = 17.6% of 75 mill (reported cap number)

McDavid has definitely had an enormous effect on the team's situation, but it really wasn't just 1 player added. Among others, in the last 2 years, they've added coach Todd Mclean and Draisaitl, Larsson, Maroon, Lucic, Kassian, Sekera, Talbot, Letestu, Benning, Russell, Nurse - It's maybe more than half the team is new. The question is how much big contracts to McDavid (and Draisaitl) will make them lose this supporting cast. They might not be able to keep RNH or re-sign Maroon and who knows who else. I've kind of change my perspective on it, though, since I read one article. Everyone thinks of Crosby's 8.7 deal as a hometown discount and apparently that was 17.3% of the cap at the time. McDavid's rumoured 13.25 mill would be 17.7% of the current cap, so maybe it's not that different? Still seems high to me, but maybe It's just inflation at work. We should be thinking proportional with the cap world anyway.

But no articles have said he's ONLY a netfront guy. That's what I was saying. He seems to have been reduced to such. Also, how did you turn "uses his size advantage" into a negative? That must be a first on LGW.com. 6'6" will always be big and if he's 221 at age 18, he could be one of the biggest forwards in the league - especially in any top 6 - if he gets there. He's already big than most power forward types like Simmonds, Benn, Carter. Maybe OV and Wheeler are a bit heavier right now... He'll still have a size advantage if he learns how to use it in the NHL. If all he had was size than it wouldn't mean much, but - watching highlights (and reading other places than LGW - I get the impression of more skilled guy - that was my point. And he's not manhandling people or doing the pile-on for netfront goals. He seems to have good hands in tight. I recommend watching a bunch of the footage of him on youtube, if haven't already. Finally, he was on pace for 43 goals when he broke his arm - I suspect it'd be a different reaction to drafting him if we were looking at that number. Anyway, I've said my piece on him - just arguing for a more balanced view. I'm out for a few days.

I guess it's the effect of someone comparing him to Holmstrom in that one article, but he really doesn't seem to be only a netfront guy. He looks like he has a pretty great shot as well. From the 26 goals shown in this highlight video they definitely don't just show netfront goals. I broke them down as such: 6 up close side of the net (from passes, mostly) 5 netfront rebound 3 netfront tips 12 slot one timer/shot (mostly on the rush) some nice snipes The first few are cleanup type goals, though, so you can skip ahead if you want. One thing I liked in the descriptions of his game was that he's great a board battles and protecting the puck. That's definitely something we've been lacking. That also might be a case for moving him to the wing, but c'est la vie.

Yeah, that does seem to be the warning sign on Rasmussen people mention, Mantha had 7 of his 22 goal on the powerplay his 1st year (32%) and 13 of his 50 in the 2nd year (26%). http://lhjmq.qc.ca/stats/team_players/171/15 Rasmussen's first year is was 8 PPGs out of 18 (44%) and 15 ppg out of 32 makes 47% so that is concerning. http://whl.ca/stats/team_players/251/217 There's one comparison that might make that less worrisome, though: Larkin had 6 of his 15 goals at UofM on the powerplay (40%) http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team/Michigan/31/overall,20142015 Or maybe a move to the wing would help his 5on5 numbers, but we do need centers much more so that wouldn't be ideal.

Since Kip mentioned the Mantha comparison, I thought it be interesting to look at how he and Rasmussen compare at the same point of their careers. Here's their first 2 years in the CHL: Mantha Rasmussen 63gp,22g,51p 63gp,18g,43p 67gp,50g,89p 50gp,32g,55p (= to 67gp 43g, 74p) I don't think this reflects so badly on Ras. You could make this comparison more favourable for Rasmussen if you consider that Mantha was in the QMHL, which is acknowledged as a higher scoring league than the WHL. I doubt anyone was expecting some of Mantha's caliber since this was known to be a weak draft, but I just thought I'd look it up. Of course this is only looking at points not skill set. Anyway, I'm not incredibly high on this choice, but I don't think people should be as low on him as this thread suggests.

I'd agree to the principle, but Rasmussen doesn't seem to be the caricature that you're presenting. Jeff Marek’s Take: “A big-bodied centreman who blends power and skill." "His impressive hand-eye coordination was on display when he represented Team Orr in January." http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/prospect-interest-411-michael-rasmussen/ Wright said, “I’ve got zero issues with his skating. I actually think he is a good skater. He is a big man who is still developing. He is just going to continue to get stronger and when he does that, he is going to continue to add weight.” http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2017/06/24/2017-nhl-draft-detroit-red-wings-michael-rasmussen/425814001/ And Vilardi has skating issues as well and isn't a great play-maker. I'm on the fence whether we should have gone with Vilardi (I'll wait for the commentary on why so many passed on him). My issue is that people are saying that size inflates status rather than just having it as an element of a players game. It's like saying a player's speed inflated his ranking.

Umm, first of a list of 2. Not sure that adds much. Why is everyone suddenly acting like size doesn't matter? (p.s. i know, i know...phrasing...)

Gilmour plays for Ozzy and Devellano's Spirit so I'm sure they have had a good view on him.

And the late round steal is......... Brady Gilmour Any relation?

Is Vilardi projected to be a #1? Or anyone else available? Honest question.