kipwinger

I know. That's my point. Furthermore I find it odd that someone showing genuine remorse for questionable behavior is now questionable behavior to guys like Neo. Like, if you're a douchebag and then feel guilty about it later you're playing into George Soros' hands or something.

This isn't an example of cancelling. Cancelling is when people pressure a 3rd party to hold the offending party accountable for things that person did/said that were considered offensive/problematic/etc. For example, when people found out that Ellen Degeneres (the offending party) was a horrible boss to her employees they started a campaign to pressure a third party (NBC) to cancel her show. Mailloux's case is not canceling because nobody pressured teams or the NHL to remove Mailloux from the draft, and they didn't remove him. He removed himself (likely in consultation with his agent). Some teams were vocal about their decision not to take him off their draft boards, which is their right and choice under the free market, but roughly 66% of the league made no such decisions according to reports.

I applaud his decision. Nice to see a Zennial taking personal responsibility for their actions for once. This young fella seems to understand that there are consequences for unethical behavior and he's owning up to it. There used to be a political party in the U.S. that talked about personal responsibility all the time, can't remember which one though.

Yup, hence my desire to trade for Ryan Johansen (with salary retention obviously).

Totally fine with that in the case of Danault too, considering his type of player tends not to age well (see: Nielsen, Frans).

Why would he? He'll be a highly sought after free agent and can basically pick his destination based on his most recent playoff run.

I'm on board as long as he can play center. We don't really need another smallish skilled winger. Same goes for Johnson, Lucius, and McTavish as far as I'm concerned. Pick whomever can play center, and if they all can, then pick the most skilled passer.

I assume this is someone just trolling with a new account, but if not... Brendan Smith and Ryan Sproul were drafted at the end of the 1st round and the 2nd round respectively and yet both of them were extremely physically developed for draft eligible players. What kept them from going higher was the fact that neither of them were thought to have much upside relative to their peers. Which brings me to your comment on Edvinsson being clumsy. You're clearly not paying attention if you're really "watching and watching" because he's very fast, strong, and athletic for his age. I've even heard him called them most athletically gifted player in the draft. The real knock on him (like Wallinder last year) is that his track record of production isn't good. So you're betting on the athletic tools despite the lack of points. Know who else had great athleticism and poor production in his draft year? Moritz Seider. So maybe there's something to this after all.

Yup

Michigan

Oops, didn't see that post. Just getting back from vacation so I'm not all caught up lol.

I can't speak for Tampa's situation but for Carolina it makes sense NOT to trade Bean because they've got more than one pretty good player exposed. Say they trade Bean, and then Seattle takes Niederreiter. Now you've lost two really good players instead of one.

Yeah, but their lists have some key differences which explain the discrepancies. Listened to this on a podcast too lol. McKenzie's list is a poll of 10 different scouts, which is then aggregated. Craig Button's is a list based on his own evaluations. So McKenzie gets pretty close on the draft order, but Craig Button does a much better job of finding individual outliers. For instance, Button was WAY higher on Eemil Viro last year than basically everyone else and his evaluation is (at least initially) justified. He specifically talked about Svechkov on the podcast and actually compared him to Datsyuk in the sense that he's not the fastest guy, but has high end skill that doesn't always lead to insane numbers because he's so defensively responsible and prefers to be more of a playmaker to talented wingers. I can't say that I agree or disagree, but it's entirely possible. Usage and coaching matter a ton and it's easy for talent evaluators to overlook HOW a player is being used and mistake a lack of offensive production for a lack of offensive skill. We saw exactly that happen with Seider.

I was listening to a podcast with Max Bultman and Corey Pronman and they discussed how there's an industry consensus on the top ten picks, as well as the first overall pick. What happens between one and ten can shake out any number of different ways. But McKenzie's list is just a prospect ranking, not a mock draft. Totally different things. There's no way that Luke Hughes gets past NJ. They need high end d-men and it's not gonna hurt to have Luke Hughes under team control when Jack hits his UFA years. Makes leaving NJ a little bit harder for him I'd think.

Pronman's latest mock draft for all rounds has some interesting names for the Wings in the first 3 rounds: 6: Mason McTavish, C 23: Isak Rosen, RW 38: Logan Stankoven, C 48: Prokhor Poltapov, LW 56: Danila Klimovich, RW 70: Benjamin Gaudreau, G 90: Liam Dower Nilsson, C

#hockeyguy

I'd rather trade Bertuzzi and a 2nd for Boeser and keep our two picks.

Lysell = Athanasiou 2.0 from what I've been hearing.

Not sure Bertuzzi is any better than Hyman. If they lose the latter and gain the former I think it's basically a lateral move.

Stop. You're not even in favor of drafting Wallstedt and so this entire exercise is just annoying. At least the other guy believes what he's saying. You're just being a pain in the ass.

If he's so good why are there 10-11 guys ranked ahead of him on EVERY single prospect ranking? You keep saying there are no top end skaters but literally EVERY prospect ranking lists skaters and defensemen higher than Wallstedt. You're literally just making things up. There is not a single prospect ranking that doesn't have William Eklund (for example) listed as a better player than Jesper Wallstedt. NOT ONE.

Lol. Wait, so the 10 and 11 NHL GMs (including Steve Yzerman twice) who didn't pick Knight and Askarov are "people like me"? I'll take that. This should probably tell you something. If you have to trivialize the collective wisdom of some of the best and brightest minds in hockey just to prove a point, you're probably wrong.

Right, I got that. What I don't get is why this criteria matters to you in this case but you don't seem to favor using similar criteria when comparing others. You're also picking and choosing which metrics to emphasize without really explaining why. Why is Brendan Shanahan worthy of the Hall but not Dave Andreychuk when their career accomplishments are nearly identical? Why do Belfour's Jenning's Trophies matter more than Osgood's Stanley Cup advantage? And I'm genuinely not trying to single you out here. I'm just using this as an example because it happens with HoF debates every year. There's no objective why to evaluate these guys because the more criteria you use (stats, personal accomplishments, team success, longevity, etc. etc. etc.) the more trouble you'll have weighting each category properly. I say let anyone who's had a great, long, career into the HoF as an attaboy to them and then set the Hall up in such a way that the very best of the best are emphasized in line with their greatness. Nobody is going to confuse Gordie Howe with Dino Ciccarelli just because they're both in the HoF. The HoF is like any other museum. It's not like the Louvre doesn't accept paintings if they're not as good as a Monet. They just emphasize the Monet paintings, or the Mona Lisa, or whatever more than they do the others.

So he's a "franchise goalie" because he doesn't get rattled and stays composed. Good analysis. Totally a worth a top ten pick. This (or something like this) is exactly what I imagined you'd say. You can't even articulate WHY you think he's so good, but you're just super sure he is. And no, things aren't "changing". There have been like 4 goalies taken in the top ten since 2001 and none in like 12 years or something. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. Some people view resistance to their "ideas" as proof of their validity. You're one of those people. Nobody is "scared" to pick a goalie. It's just poor asset management. Why? Because almost all of the best forwards in the league were picked in the top ten. Almost all of the best defensemen in the league were picked in the top ten. Almost NONE of the best goalies in the league were picked in the top ten. Because goaltenders are harder to project. Dozens of GMs have made hundreds of top ten picks over the last 20 years and almost NONE of them agree with your logic. And the ones who did were wrong more often then they were right. The fact is almost nobody agrees with you, and the ones that do have been mostly wrong. So cut the sh*t.

If individual awards are the deciding factor then I assume you’d agree that Brendan Shanahan should NOT be in the HoF then?