kipwinger

Member
  • Content count

    8,450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    130

kipwinger last won the day on March 4

kipwinger had the most liked content!

About kipwinger

  • Rank
    Legend

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington, District of Columbia

Recent Profile Visitors

11,576 profile views
  1. I didn't think we were discussing the feasibility of trading Nyquist or Dekeyser. But rather that you didn't think they'd fetch a 1st rounder, yet that they're both much better than a 1st rounder would likely be. I agree it doesn't happen often. Mostly because teams don't trade guys like Nyquist and Dekeyser very often when they're under contract. When they do, they're worth 1st rounders, though I'll concede that the more common return is appropriately valued prospects (I'd be fine with that too). I agree that we need more than one good defenseman. I think we probably even agree that Dekeyser is a pretty good defenseman. I just don't think we agree on WHEN it would be useful to have them, whether DK will still be this good then, what we should do in the mean time. I also don't think that Dekeyser is so good that it's unreasonable to think that between drafting, UFA, and what we have now that we couldn't (in a couple years) have a better defense without Dekeyser than we do with him.
  2. Why do you want another winger? It's already a position of strength for us.
  3. I'm confused by your response. If a 1st rounder isn't likely to turn out as good as DK and Nyquist are now why wouldn't a team looking to win now be willing to trade the 1st? And also, a first would have more value to us anyway (regardless of the risk) because we are (ideally) looking to be competitive in 3-4 years. So it matters a great deal less how good DK and Nyquist are now, but rather how good they will be then. Assuming we kept Tatar, we don't really need Nyquist. Seems pretty clear that some combination of AA, Mantha, Svechnikov, and Tatar are going to be the top six wingers going forward. Nyquist is a pretty expensive 3rd liner. Why not get the pick and hope to turn it into the next Werenski? Same with Dekeyser. He's not a top pairing defenseman NOW. He definitely won't be in a few years. So what's the point of keeping him when we could move him and trust that our scouting and development will find/develop someone (at least) as good as DK is now in a few years when we need it?
  4. I agree that whoever we draft this year will most likely be in the lineup. I just left them out of the lineup I proposed because I didn't want to speculate in who we'd take. And it is because of this that I'd move DK and Nyquist or Tatar (preferably Nyquist). They each probably get us a 1st this year. With 3 firsts we have the ability to 1) move up (if we're drafting 4-7th) and get an impact player in the draft, or 2) depending on our lottery position draft an impact player without moving up and get two later 1st rounders to further stock the cupboard, or 3) get a high lottery pick, then trade 2 later round picks for one pick in the 7-10th spot. All of which seem like better options to me than hanging on to them and hoping they don't continue to regress between now and when we're likely to be competitive again.
  5. We don't need to "immediately" replace him. We won't be good for at least another three years. We need to replace him/improve upon him by then. Which wouldn't be that hard. I feel the same way about Nyquist and Tatar. I'd move DK and one of them. They'd all get you a first rounder. Three first round picks would be HUGE in a couple years. Then sign FA's to fill out your roster. Besides, why keep him? By the next time we're any good he'll be 30 years old, his contract will still suck, and he'll be even less worth it. Edit: Also, aren't you the guy who CONSTANTLY complains about overpriced guys who are only suituationally good?
  6. Because he's a decent player, would get us a high draft pick, and costs too much. He's exactly the kind of guy I'd move. Good enough to get a decent return, but not so good that we can't live without him.
  7. I don't know either. And I don't even think we draft badly. As I said elsewhere, I think we've drafted really well lately to be honest. I really like Tyler Wright as the director of scouting. As far as I know, Yzerman didn't really have much of a "scouting" roll. I think that was primarily the purview of Nill, MacDonnell, and Fischer in North America, and Andersson and Vakurov in Europe while Yzerman was around. But your point is valid. I think you're right though that we've had a lot of turnover in our scouting ranks the last few years. Thankfully there hasn't been much fall off to speak of. And as I said elsewhere, I think there's a misperception that getting late round draft steals was easier than it actually is because we had a lot of success with that for a while with guys like Dats, Z, Franzen, Filppula, etc. But the truth is, guys like that almost never turn out to be that good. We weren't better at drafting back then, we just got really, really, really lucky.
  8. I agree for the most part. My understanding is that a whole series of scouts evaluate each player, score them, and then pool their scores to determine the final draft ranking. This likely mitigates the affect that any one scout has on the final determination. But like I said, this wouldn't be affective if too many of your scouts valued the same types of traits, or tended to undervalue or not recognize, others. I do think that quite a lot of teams promote "yes men" however. Not that people think to themselves "I'm going to hire a guy just because he thinks like I do". I imagine they know these people for years, have lots of conversations about hockey in which they seem to have "similar ideas" (i.e. say the kinds of things each other like to hear) and so naturally think the person "fits right in" to the organizational culture. Again, look at Lowe and McTavish. Great players, but idiot managers who just keep turning to each other for insights that neither of them had to begin with. All because they were buddies and presumably liked how the other thought about hockey. Sometimes its important for organizations to hire people who don't "fit in". I don't have a problem with the Wings promoting guys like Malts or Draper. But if I needed to hire any new scouts I'd be damn sure whoever I got hadn't spent years as a penalty killing, depth forward, with limited offensive ability. In any organization, if you've picked people well to begin with, you don't need to find more people to reinforce what you're (presumably) doing well. You should look for people to complement, innovate, and add to what you're already doing.
  9. I mean, over time the results of any particular scout speak for themselves, and the cream certainly rises to the top. But it doesn't always start that way. Maltby and Draper and Fischer weren't given jobs because they'd demonstrated keen hockey insights regarding drafting and player development. They had no results, or even a resume, to qualify them for their job in the same way Hakan Andersson does. They were given jobs because they were good Red Wings and the organization rewarded them. Same reason Osgood is a commentator despite his relative unsuitability for the job lol. Every team does it to some extent. The Oilers made Kevin Lowe and Craig McTavish executives despite their unsuitability for the job. The Avs did the same with Sakic and Roy. I don't know whether Malts and Draper are any good at their jobs or not. And they're certainly biased (which isn't bad and is true of everyone). I just think it's good for all organizations to be aware of the fact that any evaluator comes with a set of preconceived ideas about players that A) might not be useful for particular types of players, and B) have the potential to become insular if not counter balanced by other evaluators with a different set of preconceived ideas which are different yet complimentary.
  10. That wasn't what I was saying at all. I'm not blaming them for anything. I was saying that guys like Draper and Maltby think hockey in a particular way, which is likely influenced by what made them successful. That's totally fine. But that they might be less successful at recognizing the raw characteristics or traits that would make a different type of player successful. It's really not that keen of an insight. No different that suggesting that a former defenseman would be better at evaluating defensive prospects than a former forward. Not that it can't be done by a forward, but rather that a defenseman might have different, and in this case more useful, insights based on their own understanding of the necessary skillset.
  11. He's 18 and underdeveloped physically so that's to be expected. His physique will develop as he matures. But it doesn't hurt that he's got a really big frame. I haven't watched him personally like you have. But I tend to value skating, puckwork, on ice vision, and hockey smarts more in a young kid than I do strength. He'll get there, especially (as I've said) because of his frame.
  12. Given that we're most likely to draft 6th or 7th I'd like to see us target Glass or Mittelstadt. Mittelstadt is supposedly the more creative player, which is something I value in a top end center. Glass is young for the draft (17) and he's already putting up impressive numbers. I'd expect him to explode a year from now. Both have good NHL frames at over 6 feet and 200 lbs.
  13. Agreed. But hey, Russo picked us a year ago so why not you know?
  14. Well I certainly didn't suggest he'd be a "standout" player. In fact, quite the opposite. But I do think that guys who have the choice tend to pick teams for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with whether the team is good or not. I mean, why would Mike Green have signed here if that was the case. He would have got a similar deal elsewhere, and on a team that wasn't trending down for the last several seasons. Parise and Sutter picked a s***ty team that was spinning it's wheels. Who knows, maybe the Red Wings were the kid's favorite team growing up? Not much of a stretch considering a few short years ago we were EVERYBODY's favorite team. We're bad, but I don't think that means as much for guys trying to establish themselves as guys who are established and have a skill they're trying to shop to a team that can win.
  15. I read an article recently about how Teemu Selanne was starting up a hockey school for scorers and I found it really interesting. The gist is that hockey types tend to view defense and effort and what not as something that can be learned, and that scoring is a "natural" ability. I mean, how many times have you heard NHL scouts, coaches, etc. say of a guy's offensive abilities, "he's got things we can't teach"? Teemu disagrees. He argues that you can teach skills and habits that increase the probability of scoring just like you can teach any other facet of the game. Scoring, in essence, is the product of same types of learning that every other aspect of the game is. And I tend to believe him considering how wildly good he was at it for so long. So if your entire organization is filled with guys who have never been scorers, and don't know how to do it, then how are they going to know what raw skills to look for in a prospect? And how are they going to know how to develop those skills? Chances are all that potential will be overlooked in favor of what you DO know how to evaluate. Here's the link to the article for those who are interested: http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/super-scorer-teemu-selanne-doing-his-part-to-keep-finland-the-no-1-team-in-the-world