kipwinger

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?

Mind blowing that Belfour is in and people are debating Ozzie

There’s always some excuse to exclude him that nobody applies to other HoF worthy players. Nobody seems to want to exclude Yzerman from the HoF just because he was never better than Gretzky. Brendan Shanahan never won any individual hardware. Patrick Roy never played behind anything but a great team. Dynasty teams dragged Fuhr and Billy Smith to multiple Cup wins. Yet all of them get the benefit of the doubt.

You’re the one claiming he’s a slam dunk pick and a future franchise goalie, the onus is on you to back that up. Something tells me you can’t. People projected Carey Price and Fleury to go at the top of the draft for a reason, nobody has said any such thing about Wallstedt. DiPietro and Campbell and Montoya too. If you’re so sure Wallstedt is more like the former and not the latter then it should be pretty easy for you to explain why? And you’ve made it clear you’re very sure. So what is it?

I think there’s a bias in favor of flashy players, whether skaters or goalies. And so guys who aren’t flashy will never get any love relative to their flashier counterparts. Hence why Orr is considered better than Lids despite never playing defense ever. But you’re as good as your results say you are. And Ozzy, Dino, Sundin, and Andreychuk constantly delivered at the same levels as they’re flashier counterparts. Ozzy’s results are in line with his peers, and his playoff performances were frequently better. Now, one might argue that it’s not the Hall of Hockey Effectiveness. So maybe being a dull player SHOULD get you excluded, but then that means you need to kick out Brodeur and add Alex Kovalev and other such things

Why is Wallstedt a “homerun pick” and not a Dipietro or Campbell or Montoya?

I suppose you could try to turn the conventional line of gritty winger-playmakeing center-shooter on it's head and have gritty winger-shooting center-playmaker. In which case I suppose McTavish would work (though in that case I'd rather have Lucius since he's the better faceoff guy). A top nine as follow might be fine, depending on how Raymond, McTavish/Lucius, and Berggren turn out but it's still fairly small. Bert-Larkin-Vrana Ras/Veleno-McTavish/Lucuis-Raymond Fabbri/Berggren-Ras/Veleno-Zadina I think I'd still prefer a playmaking center with this pick. As I've said elsewhere, I'd draft Johnson/Eklund and spend the next two years teaching them to be top centers in the AHL. I'd pick up Ryan Johanson for peanuts to be a workhorse for the next two years and eventually be our 3C at the end of his contract (or trade him). I'd move Veleno AND Rasmussen to the wings to give us the grit we need. And I'd look to fix our LD and goalie situations by trading Fabbri and Zadina/Berggren. In three years we'd have: Bert-Larkin-Raymond Veleno-Johnson/Eklund-Vrana Ras-Johansen-Zadina/Berggren Smith-Glen-Pearson (or something like that).

"Tanguay, 41, has spent the last two years as an assistant coach with the American Hockey League's Iowa Wild. Over those two seasons, the Wild combined for a 54-31-8-4 record, with a second place finish in the Central Division and Western Conference during the 2019-20 campaign. Iowa had the AHL's fifth-best power play in Tanguay's first season behind the bench at 21.9 percent, and its offense was among the league's most productive, improving from 3.08 goals per game in 2019-20 to 3.15 goals per game over a 34-game schedule in 2020-21. The Wild also had the second-best shot-per-game average in the AHL in each of the past two seasons, averaging 32.68 combined in Tanguay's tenure with the club." https://www.nhl.com/redwings/news/red-wings-hire-alex-tanguay-as-assistant-coach/c-325526982

SMH. Why, if you already had Alnefelt, would you waste a first round pick on Cossa?

You're missing the point. I'm agreeing with you that trading with Tampa is a good idea. I'm also making a point that you can get top goaltending talent in a number of ways that DON'T require using a top 10 pick. Tampa and Columbus are just two examples.

Wait, are you suggesting that the Wings could acquire a top end goalie prospect WITHOUT using a top 10 pick in the draft? I'm flabbergasted. Next you're gonna tell me that Columbus has two starting goalies and they're looking to trade one. This is just crazy.

I think it's overblown to an extent. Sure Kent Johnson is skinny, so was Elias Pettersson but he grew. Sure McTavish is a bit slower than idea, so was Rasmussen and Vilardi and they both keep up fine now. Lucius had a bad knee, so does Robby Fabbri and he's fine. I think the focus on these guys shortcomings is just content. There's no "so and so is an ungodly talent" stories to write so the horse race focus on the minor differences between the top guys has become the narrative IMO.

An easier way of saying this is that you're not going to make it through the playoffs with a bunch of 6ft, 190 lb., pantywaists. All of Vrana, Raymond, Berggren, and Zadina are good, or going to be good, NHL wingers. But if those guys, plus Bertuzzi, Larkin and Veleno, are in your top six you're going to get pushed around in the playoffs. We see it every year. There's a reason Tampa went out and got Barcley Goodrow (for a 1st round pick) after they basically got checked to death by Columbus two years ago. My only concern with drafting McTavish is that his playmaking is suspect, and if he's going to play 2C he's going to need to distribute the puck well. Currently it's the weakest part of his game. If he can't make plays he can't be a center, and we REALLY don't need more wingers until we get that figured out. You could always trade a Zadina or Berggren for a power winger down the road but you're not getting a top center in a trade very often. If they think his playmaking will improve and he'll slot in as a 2C down the road then I'm fine with him as a 6th pick. But they better be sure, because if we come out of these bottom out years without another decent center we're in real trouble.

I was gonna say, pretty sure the Hughes brothers aren't shy.

Oops, missed that one. Either way.

No, they weren't. Again, only 3 goalies have been taken with a top 10 pick in 20 years. I might agree with your thought process if we were taking about the 28th pick or something. But we aren't. We're talking about the 6th, and NHL teams don't use top ten picks on goalies. It simply doesn't happen. There's probably a good reason for that.

He very obviously differs from that take considering he could have had Knight or Askarov the last two seasons, both of whom were more highly anticipated prospects than Wallstedt or Cossa, and he chose neither. People think that because Yzerman drafted a goalie in the first round one time that he's going to be inclined to reach on a goalie with a top ten pick now? Doubtful. A top ten pick has only been used on a goalie three times since 2000, and not at all in the last 16 years. In the last 16 years, 30+ GMs made 160 top ten selections and NONE of them took a goalie. And yet, elite goalies still exist. That should probably tell you something. FWIW one of those three guys (DiPietro) was a bust, and two (Fleury and Price) are Hall of Famers. ALL of them were considered better prospects than Wallstedt or Cossa. There's absolutely NO reason to think either of the two goalies this year will be a Fleury or a Price. It's a wasted pick. GMs know this, that's why they don't do it anymore.

1. Hasek was drafted 199th overall. That's exactly my point. 2. You're underselling this class. There are plenty of players we could draft at 6th overall that project as top pair, top line players. Just none that currently project as star players. The same was true in 2017 and plenty of stars emerged from that class. I'd rather have a Heiskanen, Makar, Pettersson, Necas, Suzuki, Norris, etc. than a top goalie prospect. Why? Because it's easier to trade for a good starting goalie than a top line center or first pair defenseman. 3. Since you're asking, I'd rather take the chance that Kent Johnson is another Elias Pettersson than that Wallstedt is another Price. 4. As for the bolded, I'd rather we have a team that wins. I don't care about having the world's best goalie. I care about having the world's best team. Time and again the best teams win with average goalies. Almost never do the best goalies win with average teams. So who cares about the Vezina?

It's about asset management. Teams have learned since Carey Price was drafted that an elite goalie means jack squat if you don't have elite position players. And top end position players are harder to find later in the draft, unlike goalies. The three best goalies of the modern era are Luongo, Lundquist, and Price and NONE of them ever won anything. Corey Crawford had more Cups than all three combined and he's not even close to elite. Why do you think that is? I'll tell you why, it's more important to have a Duncan Keith or Jonathan Toews or Patrick Kane on your team than it is to have a Carey Price.

You're being a little disingenuous here. TSN's final rankings, which are an aggregate survey of NHL scouts, had Seider at 16. Now they're saying he's the best prospect in the world. NOBODY, including NHL scouts, believed Seider was this good except Yzerman and co. So while you're correct that Pronman got that one wrong, so did everyone else. I'd argue that it's probably because talent evaluators have an unconcious bias toward "flashy" players. Guys that play a simple, effective, efficient game just don't get the same love. Hence why Makar and Adam Fox are Norris finalists despite the fact that neither of them can be trusted in defensive situations. People didn't see flashy offense in Seider's game, so he wasn't valued properly.