kipwinger

At his current scoring rate he's have about 40 goals after 240 games, so that's something to look forward to. The good news is that I've watched the last 20 games and can definitely see an improvement in his shooting. He's getting way better. Definitely not trying to fire low percentage shots through the goalie's logo anymore. So I expect that shooting percentage to take off at any time.

I'll just be happy for him when he gets his 20th career NHL goal. It's been a long slog through three seasons, but I'm confident he'll hit the big 2-0 sometime after the All-Star break.

If they were going to bring Gorton in as the Pres. of Hockey Operations and have a French speaking GM working under him why not just keep Bergevin?

I don't know a ton about Copp, does he actually play center in Winnipeg?

With Larkin injured last season Rasmussen finished the year as the 1C for this team and looked like he was able to keep up with better players (mentally and physically). I figured after a good summer in the gym (due to injuries, his first full offseason since he was drafted) he'd be a beast as a 3C. Instead he's shown none of the intensity or skill he showed a year ago and doesn't look any stronger.

They're soooooo terrible. I hate them. My dad and I were watching the same the other night and openly laughing at how dumb those helmets look. Not quite as much as the new Devil's "jersey" sweaters, but a horrible choice nonetheless.

The reason why there's no debate about Rasmussen is that those who thought he'd take a big step forward this year (myself and a few others) don't feel compelled to make excuses for the guy. He sucks. He's failed to take that step forward, and it's nobody's fault but his. The same is true for Zadina. The only difference is that there seems to be a pretty strong Zadina contingent around here unwilling to admit the same things about him. You guys keep saying we have "unrealistic expectations" for Zadina but we're only having this debate because some folks are having a hard time admitting he's worse than they'd expected him to be. Yet somehow we're "unrealistic" when we insinuate he's much closer to his floor than his ceiling.

He scores in a lot of different ways too. I've seen him bury one timers, jam in rebounds, or dangle through defenders. Guys that can score in a lot of different ways usually have more success.

I'm getting progressively more juiced about this guy. Like, these aren't just "he's big and playing against 17 year old goals". He's a very consistent goal scoring threat against the best professional teams in Europe. He's the real deal.

Sodorblom: 2G Edvinsson: 2A

I think when people bring up his projection it’s for two reasons. First, because projections help set fan expectations and that’s relevant to the conversation we are having on LGW. Second, those projections reflect the opinions of more than a few professional scouts, former GMs, and other talent evaluators. It was not unreasonable to come out of that draft thinking we had a player that had the talent level of a top 3-5 pick. That is also relevant to this conversation. Edit: (To address your example) You don't buy stocks based on their price, you buy them based on how you expect them to perform. The price of any given stock is based on it's valuation (i.e. track record of success). Any investment that makes money is a good one, but some are more valuable than others. And you pay more for stocks that are going to make you more money. If you pay a lot for a stock that makes you the same as a cheaper stock, you're a bad investor. So back to your example, a stock that had devalued by 30% (from 100K down to 70K) in three months would be a riskier investment than one that's remained at 70K for those same three months. Similarly, you invest a top 5-10 pick in an NHL prospect because you expect it to perform better than a 10-15th overall pick. These players valuations are determined by everything they've done on the ice up to draft day. Ken Holland picked Zadina thinking he was getting a top 5 talent at 6th overall. Lots of people thought that. And maybe he will be. But it's hard not to think of the stock that dropped 30% in three months when thinking about a prospect who's "stock dropped" on draft day. Zadina, Veleno, Mantha. None of them have been as good as what we thought we were getting because their valuations were flawed in the first place.

It matters because draft picks are investments. Like all investments, you expect a return on them. Ideally, the more costly the investment the greater the return.

You’re moving the goalposts. First you said Blash doesn’t develop players. Those guys both developed beyond almost anyone else drafted where they were. And they did so under Blash. Now you’re saying they don’t count because they “didn’t put it together” and they aren’t on the team. They both put it together just fine as I’ve already stated (more than anyone else drafted where they were). They aren’t on the team because neither gives a s*** and couldn’t be bothered to compete. This despite Blash repeatedly telling them exactly how to improve both privately and publicly. He also gave and took away ice time, and even scratched them when it got serious. He can’t MAKE them give a s***. What’s he supposed to do, play for them? And both are the EXACT SAME players elsewhere. Kinda like it’s not Blashill’s fault.

6/6: You asked who exceeded expectations. Mantha and Athansiou both did. Mantha is either the 2nd or 3rd best 20th overall pick in the last 20 years. Definitely behind Brent Burns and maybe Travis Zajac. Athanasiou was/is a regular, contributing, top 9 NHL forward despite being drafted in the 4th round. Neither are superstars, but both of them (like Jensen) turned out just about as good as one could expect given where they were drafted. So again, if Blash bears responsibility for guys like Mrazek, Sheahan, and Svech not panning out then he MORE than makes up for it by getting more out of the guys I mentioned than could reasonably be expected. OR (and this is my position) he really doesn't have much to do with guys Svech's failures or Jensen's successes. The first lost almost two full years of developmental time to serious injuries and probably still isn't NHL caliber, and the second plied his trade in the AHL until he was 26 before he was finally NHL ready and only then did he get called up and used in a depth role he could handle. One final thought: The Red Wings drafting and player development was absolutely abysmal under Holland. The ONLY top six forwards drafted and developed between Datsyuk/Zetterberg and Larkin/Mantha were Tatar and Nyquist (maybe Filppula or Hudler if you're being REALLY generous). So from 1999 to 2013 they drafted 2 top six talents. The ONLY top four defenseman they drafted and developed between Kronwall and Hronek? None. Not one. From 2000 to 2016 they developed ZERO top four defensemen. This was a systemic problem that had a lot to do with A) bad draft position, B) piss poor decisions by the GM on draft day, and C) a terrible development program and almost nothing to do with Blashill.

Okay, I'll play. But I have to deal with it in parts. 1. Larkin, Bertuzzi, Mantha, Nick Jensen, Hronek, and Athanasiou (off the top of my head). Partial credit for Tatar and Nyquist who he coached in the AHL and NHL. And quarter credit for Raymond and Seider, both of whom are outperforming expectations but it's a little too early to tell. 2. He doesn't "add" anyone to his roster. That's the GM's job. 3. That's called "coaching", which is his job. That's different than development, which denotes playing the right player in the right league against the right competition to ensure their long term success. 4. As I've said before, Larkin is very good. If you're giving Blashill credit for him being so then you're contradicting your own point. 5. Svech was only on the team because the roster was expanded because of the "taxi squad" and he was out of waiver. He only played because half the team was sick and/or injured. I'm sure Blashill would have preferred not to play him at all. He sucks. He won't even be in the NHL in another year (see: Frk, Martin).

Ok, I concede. Blashill bears some responsibility for Dylan Larkin being a very good player. You win.

Neat. The NHL isn't a developmental league and it's not Jeff Blashill's job to make sure prospects develop. It's the GM and the player development staff's job. Jeff Blashill is no more responsible for Svech's development than he is for all they players who have dramatically outperformed expectations since he's been the coach.

So he ranges from being an above average player to a considerably above average player and you think this is an indictment of Blashill? Nice try.

Still at a loss for why Svechnikov is being used as a measuring stick here? What does he have to do with anything at all?

Looks like a pretty consistent 60 plus points a year to me. So far in his career he’s had one down year. So what?

So he scores no less than a bunch of other guys who barely score? Glowing endorsement.

He just signed a 3 year contract extension at a pretty reasonable cap hit. He'd cost a fortune to acquire at this point.

I've never advocated dumping him. See my posts above. Also, he played almost ALL of last season with Larkin (until he got injured) because Bertuzzi was hurt. Even after Larkin's injury (and Vrana's acquisition) Zadina was still on the top line. I don't mind debating this with you, but it's not helping either of us if we don't get basic facts straight. I think I'd be happy if he looked capable of scoring 40 pts a season. Nevermind 60 pts. But based on his play so far I"m not at all confident he'll hit that mark in what is now his 3rd professional season.

I'm not sure I agree with this though. He was drafted to score, and he's not scoring. That's a problem. Darren Helm played good defense, worked his ass off, had good possession metrics (for most of his career) and couldn't score on the chances he generated too. Plenty of 4th line guys have good possession metrics actually. I think we all expect Zadina to be better than that. And if he isn't then I don't think we're really happy with his play. Or at least not as happy as we'd like to be. I'm genuinely not a Zadina hater. I think there are good aspects to his game. But I think he's in over his head on the 2nd line. Right now I'd probably switch him with Namestnikov.

Sure, I agree with that. Neither are so good that they couldn't be traded if they can help get a decent return. I'm really not desperate to get rid of either of them though. When this team is good again it's not going to be made up entirely of 25 year olds. Guys like Bert, Larkin, and Fabbri are going to be the 30 year old's who have as much value teaching guys how to be good pros as they do on the ice. Similarly the team isn't going to be made up entirely of point-per-game studs like Lucas Raymond either. You're going to need quality 3rd line guys who can chip in offense, play up the lineup in the event of injuries, and don't get torched on defense. Zadina (so fa) fits that bill. And if he improves? Great.