kipwinger

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.

For the billionth time, drafting a goalie at 6th is RETARDED. If you can get an Askarov at 11th, a Knight at 13th, or a Vasilevsky at 19th, why would you take a Wallstedt or Cossa at 6th? It's HORRIBLE asset management. And it's not like we aren't going to be draft in that 12-15 range the next couple years as we start turning this around. Assuming you want to draft a goalie (which is pretty dumb), it's been proven time and again you can find elite goalies later in the first round. It's MUCH harder to find elite defensemen and centers in that range. So in order to maximize the value of your picks you should (generally) take centers and defensemen with higher first rounders, and wingers and goalies with lower ones.

Well this game is completely out of hand. 4-1 Vegas. Montreal is just completely outclassed in this one.

Why do you say that?

Aside from the fact that he already had significant concussion issues before he was even drafted, he missed an entire season because of MORE concussion issues and has sucked since returning. The guy is closer to retiring than "bouncing back". I get trying to find value, I just think you're barking up the wrong tree with Nolan Patrick.

Nolan Patrick blows. He's slow, he's got concussion issues, and he doesn't produce. Why do you want this guy so bad? He's not better than ANY of the centers we already have on the team.

Meh, Seabrook is big pud. He's Chicago's Danny Dekeyser. I'm sure his wedding was nothing but bridesmaid's speeches and the chicken dance. F*ck that dork.

Man I wanted James Wisniewski on this team there for a bit. Babcock would have hated him of course (he scored too many points or something) but he was tough and could score. Loved seeing that guy on the ice.

Look how big Michael Rasmussen is in this video. And then just remember that he's basically never had a full offseason to train...until now. Dude's going to wreck shop this upcoming season.

Not to mention an absolute ton of quality talent rumored to be available via trade.

First, checking the puck carrier (Evans) is a perfectly legal way of separating the man from the puck. In every facet of the game you're allowed to legally hit a player to get the puck from him. Second, Evans put the puck in the net less than a second before the hit. Watch it at full speed. It's not like he got rid of the puck and then Scheifele took a few more strides and blew him up. It was literally a fraction of a second between Evans putting the puck in the net and Scheifele delivering the hit. You're allowed to skate the entire length of the ice and hit another player as long as that player has the puck. That's literally what backchecking is. To me the only questions worth asking are, A) did he target the head?, and B) even if the hit isn't "illegal" should he ease up anyway as a courtesy to another player. I don't know about the first one, the hit seems high but hard to say if he "targeted" the head. To the second question I'd say he absolutely should lay off that hit, despite it not being illegal. Reminds me of the hit Matthew Tkachuk threw on Kassian a few years back behind the net. Not illegal, but pretty much every player agreed (in the wake of the hit) that he shouldn't have done it and Kassian beat his ass for it.

I almost pointed this out last night too.

If that was charging then every player who's ever made contact on a backcheck is "charging". He was backchecking, trying to save a game clinching goal, and very nearly got there. The puck didn't go into the net until a fraction of a second before the hit. They were both trying to make a play on the puck at a critical time. Evans was (I assume) entirely focused on getting the empty netter, and as a result put himself (probably unwittingly) into a vulnerable position. Scheifele was backchecking his ass off trying to prevent that goal (and losing a critically important game). It was a bang-bang play. I'd agree it was a charge if the puck was already in the net for a second or two and then Scheifele hit Evans unnecessarily, but that's not what happened.

Montreal's success is a product of how bad the Canadian Division really is. I'll always be indebted to them for beating Toronto (the takes alone were worth it), but I'd never confuse them with an actually good team. They'll get smashed by Colorado/Vegas.