PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Curly Tatar Fries!!!!!!!!!!!

There's many, many factors that have come together and, to me, a 3 choice poll won't get the diagnosis right. There's always the desire to lay the blame on one person, but I just hope we don't do one of the sacrificial lamb moves that I've seen from other teams where it ends up hurting a team long term.

Larkin!!!!

I really don't see the connection of your list and the conclusion. To me this is the wrong way to measure success at drafting. Your approach implies that players taken at a given number will be of a similar level. This is very false when comparing year to year, as you're doing, since drafts vary greatly. Also, you use first pick. the whole argument that Wings being good at drafting has been based on success in later rounds and for volume of success. first pick doesn't look at that aspect.

I would give this a solid nope. We're struggling now because of that success - that's how the Cap and draft system is designed. And to recognize the larger picture is to be realistic and not get too down on the current state of things during tough times.

Mantha struggled big time in his first AHL year (compounded by breaking his leg), then continued his struggles in the second before finally putting it together in the AHL at the beginning of this year. Saying someone is getting used to the league faster than that is not much of a compliment. If I were to summarize that article for you, I would say: Svech struggled a lot at the beginning of the year, but things have looked better since he's working on some shortcomings in his game although the results have not translated in production as they will need to for the young scorer continuing to develop.

I like to look at The Devils for perspective on these kinds of questions since their playoff streak 1997-2010 put them in a similar situation of never drafting high. Since they started their playoff-less streak, they've picked up Larsson and Zacha, but those are low first rounders, so I'll just consider 10 years where both teams were in the similar situation of picking high (2000-2010) 2000-2010: 1st round picks to play more than 200 games: 2000: David Hale (22nd overall) 2003: Parise (17th overall) 2004: Zajac (20th overall) 2009: Jacob Josefson (20th overall) vs. 2000: Kronwall (29th) 2005: KIndl (19th) 2007: Smith (27th) 2010: Sheahan (21st) http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=80702 So I think they come out ahead on quality because of Parise and Zajac, but I don't consider that much more to show since those 2 are their only guys still in the NHL and Kronwall is equal to one of those guys. One problem with the comparison is that Kenny traded his 1sts a couple of times for a 2nd plus another pick. Another is that we usually picked lower than them. If you look at those draft history pages, though, we definitely come out ahead when looking at number and quality of players picked up in the rest of the draft. That is where the reputation of the Wings as good at draft comes from - the lower rounds. I do think our advantage has lessened in recent years, though, as Europe and Russia are now thoroughly scouted. Edit: If you consider all the years that both teams were riding the streak at the same time, that adds Van Ryn for them and Jiri Fischer for us. That makes it even more interesting since Fischer looked to be headed toward the high caliber.

I don't like those lines. The first line is pretty slow which I think will be a problem. Also, Tatar and Nyquist shouldn't be on the same line - we had all of last year to see that doesn't work.

Haha, I forgot about that guy. I just googled it and there's a reddit thread that says he moved to Florida.

The point on Jurco goes beyond this year. Jurco was kept in the NHL when he wasn't ready and spent a lot of time scratched or on the 4th line when he could have been getting good minutes in the AHL and developing his game. Then he was kept on the 4th despite the fact that he didn't play a grinder-type game. This should be something of a warning against bringing someone like Svech up who isn't ready yet. He has 8 pts in 24 games in GR. In the NHL that would probably be around 3 pts and he would end up as the extra forward and needlessly get him frustrated. Let him find his footing in the AHL first.

That's simply not true, though. Z mainly played mainly wing early on. On the 2 kids and a goat Pav was the centerman almost all the time. Pretty much the exact equivalent would be AA playing on Larkin's wing (You can even put Vanek or Z on the wing if you want a goat). You can say they all had "great Cs" but Pav wasn't polished Pav when they played together in the early years. Messier played his first 5 years in the NHL at left wing. And he didn't play most of his time on the famous Gretzky-Kurri line, he was on the the 2nd line with Glen Anderson. Andreychuck was left wing for most of his early career and didn't switch until much later. Even after his move to the Lightning, maybe. Not sure who he would have played with in Buffalo. Anyway, I was just giving some examples. I'm sure there's plenty of centers that start on the wing as they're first getting into the league. I really like AA and I'd be fine if he plays center - I just don't think it mess up his development if he switches to that position later. I liked him last year as 3C and I like him this year as winger on the 1st or 2nd line - he's shown he can do both so more power to him (yes, that's a battery joke).

Forgot there was a game tonight. A late LGW!!!!

Well, you listed some of the best centers ever to play (except obviously McDavid still has to build his legacy). Many great centers like Zetterberg, Messier, Malkin, Fedorov, Pavelski, Benn, Damphousse, Bobby Hull (more a winger who played center), Kirk Muller, Andreychuck, spent significant time on the wing and switched between the 2 positions at different times in their careers.

I thought AA played most if not all of his 14 games last year at center, but i could be wrong. Anyway, I'm not adamant that he not play center - just that it's not essential that he play there right now. My argument is more: Wing is easier, maybe let him continue to excel there and then transition to center once he's fully used to the league. Also, maybe transition him there once Larkin's got a handle on being center. If you put Larkin and AA as our top 2 centers, as you suggest, that could be some rough sledding for the team for a while if we have our 2 main centers that can't run the system/win faceoffs/transition as centermen need to. You could actually be hurting other players development (like Mantha) by not giving them someone who can currently handle this important position. For instance, Mantha's excelling with Z and I think him continuing to score and feel comfortable in the league is really important to our future. Replace Z with Larkin, who isn't a great centerman yet and maybe that goes away. Side point: you say Nielson's not our future at center, but he is signed for 5 more years and will likely be 2C or 3C for that time. He can handle the 2C spot for a couple years.

While I agree that they both need to put up some goals, Tatar has 4 points in the past 4 games - he's been good with Z and Mantha. My lineup was more to show how the centers could line up if we were healthy and I kept some of the established chemistry together (mostly just Z's line and Nyquist+Vanek)

Kip, I don't feel like having both Larkin and AA at center is a must this year. I think both AA and Larkin have looked more comfortable on the wing and had a greater impact from that position. I'd still like to keep Larkin at center, in case Z hits a wall and because Larkin becoming a top center is pretty important to the future (perhaps near future). But why not keep AA on wing and playing with better linemates and getting better minutes? Him being on the 4th was just due to it being his 1st game back - he was getting on higher lines before the injury. Players like Z and I'm sure many others, enter the league as wingers and then go back to center successfully later, so he could follow that path if we need him to. Anyway, we have Nielson and Helm signed to be the likely 2C and 3C for the next few years, so we don't even really need him for those roles for a while. I'm excited to see a healthy team with AA, Larkin and Mantha. We could even put something like this out there: Tat-Z-Mantha AA-Niel-Abby Ny-Lark-Vanek Shea/Jurco-Helm-Glen

Lapointe's deal was 5.2-5.5 million per year for 4 years in 2005. With inflation (used online calculator) that's 6.45-6.8 million per. Abby's caphit is 4.25. That's a substantial difference to me. P.S. I'm sure we've had this discussion over you using this comparison before. Death, Taxes, and Dickie deriding the Abby deal.

The logic is that if it even took Price, a can't miss prospect and now elite goaltender, a number of years to develop once in the NHL, then maybe we should give Mrazek some leeway in these early years. Maybe he won't get there, but there's really very few goalies - if any - that don't have some struggles early in their time in the league. That's the argument and I think it should be kept in mind.

Well that was weird.

That's craziness if Marchenko doesn't take Lashoff's spot. Lashoff's supposed to be the quiet sound D type, but him being weak on the puck caused the first goal last game. Still don't know why we didn't call up Jensen instead of him to start with.

At least Larkin doesn't play all of each game on the 4th line. You could see him with Z and Mantha for a goal last game, with Vanek and Nyquist for another goal and plenty of other shifts. Maybe Larkin on the 4th line is just a strategy to give Larkin some lower competition to get used to the center position. Or maybe a way to double shift him.

WOOOO!!!!

Good 3rd period so far, but got make that translate into a goal.

Maybe we just need to play some lowrider to get everyone's head in the game.

But you said that "Our finest forward prospects are looking like CAREER 2nd or 3rd liners," Now you say that you're happy with Mantha, Larkin etc. as "a core for the youth movement, honestly." That is a contradiction unless you're happy with a future team core that you think won't be anything more than 2nd and 3rd liners. And you said the "the well is dry" and now you say you're about our young forward group that you're "happy with that as a core for the youth movement, honestly." That is a contradiction.