kipwinger

From what I understand there's no obvious #1 like there has been in years past and the class is heavy on defensemen supposedly, but I don't really know whether it is deep or not. I'm generally of the opinion that most classes are about the same anymore (because the scouting is so good) and that the only real difference is who's at the very top. If there's a McDavid/Eichel situation people will say the class is crazy good, and if there's Hischier/Patrick they'll say it's bad. But about the same number of guys will pan out from either class. Still too early to tell, but from what I've seen there's no obvious superstar at the head of the class so as long as we're picking in the top 5 I'd assume we're getting a player who's generally as good as any other player in that area.

I don't really care too much as long as we're in the bottom five. The concensus top pick is Owen Power, who I don't care about considering our depth on defensemen. I'm completely content picking 3-5 and landing one of the centers (preferably Johnson or Beniers from Michigan).

Not all all. I like sports and music. I'm a fan of one hockey team. But I don't care who plays for them (provided they win). That's the extent of it. However, I don't "like" or care about the players. If Joe Veleno died in a fire tomorrow I wouldn't care. At all. But if the NHL folded tomorrow I'd be pretty bummed because I like watching professional hockey, something Veleno will get to do a lot of from the press box.

Not at all. I like tons of things. For instance I'd really like you to f*ck off. But I'm not holding my breath. Kinda like I'm not holding my breath that Joe Veleno will ever be anything more than 3rd line center on a non-competitive hockey team.

I feel about the Red Wings the way I feel about most entertaining, yet inherently meaningless, things. And I feel about you the way I feel about genital warts.

They aren't, he just always seems to lose "must win" games. That's basically what I was referring to.

You brought it up when you asked, so don't blame me. But I'm happy to help you understand. Watching hockey is entertaining, so I watch quite a lot it. Some players, on all hockey teams, are really good...and therefore more entertaining to watch. However, I'm only a fan of one specific team, the Red Wings, because I'm from Michigan and have a (reasonably) healthy amount of civic pride. If I have a choice between all 31 teams winning the Cup, it would be the Red Wings. I don't really care which players help them achieve that goal. The minute a player stops playing for the Red Wings they fall off my radar pretty significantly, regardless of how entertaining they are. For comparison's sake, I also enjoy watching MMA because it's entertaining. But I'm not a fan of individual fighters because none of them represent the place I'm from in any obvious way. I still watch, I still enjoy it, but I don't care who wins as long as I'm entertained.

To me "like" is a silly word in this context. I'm a fan of the Red Wings and want them to win. If those two guys help the Wings win I'll be happy about that. But I'd be just as happy if Brad Marchand or some other "unlikable" player helped them win because I don't "like" or "dislike" hockey players (or other people I haven't met).

He should look on the bright side. He can't get lit up in the playoffs if he doesn't play. There's always a silver lining.

I was responding to the questions you asked man. You said "Do you like Veleno?" and "do you like Seider?". That's what started this. Not my place to speak for you and who you do/don't like.

It's not clear to me that anyone said he was being "outperformed". It is a FACT, however, that he's being out produced. And that's relevant because his team sucks, so he's being outproduced by players who aren't all that good in a league that's worse than the NHL. Perhaps that doesn't bode well for his NHL upside? Bingo. I like sports and music. I don't like people I've never met.

This is definitely interesting. I'm curious if there's any source for identifying which NHLers use longer sticks.

I am a fan of the team, I don't care which players play for the team as long as they win. Again I don't "like" people I don't know because that would be silly. I don't "like" actors or musicians either. I like movies and music. I guess maybe because I'm not into personality cults.

Except that time and time again evidence disproves the "eye test". Seeing IS believing, but believing isn't always reality.

I don't "like" players because I'm not a fanboy. I would GLADLY replace every single player in the Red Wings organization with other players if it made the team better. I think "liking" people I don't know is childish tbh. But you do you.

I did think AA would be better, but I never said he'd be "elite" to make that point. Because that would be silly. I'm also not the one whining that "kip and co." take me at face value when I say silly things. You are. Why not just own up to the fact that you were being hyperbolic about Veleno because you A) like him, and B) don't like being wrong? You definitely said that about Hronek, in the EXACT same post you called Coreau a future starter. Do I really need to go find the post?

Yeah his scoring really took off once they moved him to the wing. Definitely evidence that he's going to be a good NHL center one day. Totally. If you're going to throw out his first 10 games in an effort to make the case that he's actually playing well, then you should probably include the fact most of his scoring has come after he was moved to an easier position. Whatever man, Drew Miller had "elite" penalty killing ability and it's about time his "eliteness" was recognized for what it was. And don't you DARE question it. He's clearly more elite than a college player bro.

You make TONS of outrageous claims about prospects. You once said that Jared Coreau had NHL starting goalie upside. You said Hronek would never be more than 3rd pairing dman. So it's not my job to intuit which of your takes is hyperbole and which is just bad judgement. And stop acting like a victim, you said it, and you're currently doubling down on it (to some degree) by claiming that ALL NHLers are elite compared to other players. So own it.

Every single team in the NHL has one or two bad contracts on the books. There is NO risk in that, especially for the Red Wings. In some cases having bad contracts is actually an advantage. There are no free agents who are going to get Yzerman additional prospects and picks in the acquisition. None. You've compared this Killorn/Johnson situation to Nielsen about 3 times in the last two days. Do I really need to prove it or will you just admit you've made that (silly) comparison a number of times? Neither I nor @Wait&Sneed ever said the return for Killorn and Johnson WOULD be a 2nd. We both said that IF that were the only return we'd still do the deal because in addition to the pick (which is pretty) valuable you'd be getting solid, Cup winning, productive, veteran players to replace the sh*tbags we'll be losing to attrition over the next two years without ANY negative impact on our ability to sign players or fit under the cap.

Heaven forbid I allow my point of view to be influenced by empirical evidence. I should just pass on stats like you do...except you don't. You use stats to make points all the time. Like you've repeatedly done with Killorn and Johnson. It's funny, stats are bad when I use them to point out that Veleno is really mediocre, but they're great when you use them to suggest that Killorn and Johnson aren't going to be any good in a few years. Got it. There is no standard timeline to get to the NHL. The league you're drafted out of has as much impact on that as how "developed" you are. Veleno went to the AHL early relative to other players in the CHL, not other players in general. TONS of players go to the AHL at the same age, or earlier, than Veleno and perform MUCH better. Larkin did. So did Zadina. So did Seider. So did Svechnikov. ALL of them performed better at that level than Veleno did. He was not doing something that many many many many other players haven't done, more successfully, than he did. The only year Veleno has been at the top of ANY team (nevermind league) he played in was as a 19 year old, draft +1, player in the CHL.

Joe Veleno will never be "elite" in the NHL. Regardless of how many times you say so. And him being the 6th most productive player on a s***ty SHL team is hardly evidence that he will. If you think Veleno will be an "elite 2C" or even a "solid 2C" in the NHL because of his play in the SHL then I can't even imagine how good you think Berggren will be. The only time that Veleno has excelled as a center was as an overager in the CHL. You've already compared him to a completely pedestrian player in Danault. The funny thing is, I agree with that assessment. I think Veleno will be a two-way, mid-40s point, center. And if a guy like that is your 2nd line center you're totally f*cked because there are a whole bunch of teams with WAY better center depth than that.

You said it was risky. It isn't. Glad you're acknowledging as much. But now you're saying you don't like it, which is apparent and also completely irrelevant. The fact is that Tampa is going to have to trade two players to get cap compliant. Given the fiscal landscape they're going to sweaten the pot to do so. Turning up your nose at free (good player) and picks, when those players have ZERO risk, is short sighted. I'm not sure why you'd assume Killorn, who just had a career year, would fall off a cliff in the next three years given standard aging curves. You keep comparing them to Nielsen which is funny because even he was scoring in the mid-30 pts range when he was 33-34 years old (the age Killorn and Johnson will be at the end of their contracts). So even your "worst case scenario" isn't actually that bad. Tampa got demolished two years ago in the first round and came within one game of getting bounced in the first round again by the same team. Then they struggled to beat a Dallas team that nobody thought was a legitimate contender. They're not some dominant dynasty team. Feel free to have all the opinions you want about 2nd round picks. Its a fact that NHL GMs want those picks badly and that those picks are routinely used to A) trade up to get better players, B) turn into very good players themselves (Bertuzzi, Hronek).

Wait, now you think Yzerman is going to GIVE UP assets for Johnson and Killorn and only get the 60th pick in return? Lol. That's absurd. Nobody, including KRsmith (who also hates the idea), has stated anything of the sort. It's absurd. You're literally making up things that nobody has said and then arguing against your own made up premise.

I don't disagree with you, but you're coming late to the debate. The only reason we're even discussing "elite" 2C players is because KRsmith said Veleno has elite upside. Which is absurd. If he'd said that Veleno would be an "ideal" 2C (he's compared him to Danault) I would still disagree because Danault isn't even a very good 2C when compared to the guys you mentioned, but at least it wouldn't be as patently absurd as saying Veleno has "elite" upside. The fact of that matter is that we don't have many players with higher end upside, and almost none at center and that's a huge problem. If Joe Veleno is a Danault-like player in a few years, and is playing on our 2nd line, we're f*cked because good teams don't have 45 pt 2nd line centers. That would be a disaster, which is why I've said many times that a player like that is best slotted on a 3rd line like Jordan Staal. Something KRsmtih disagreed with until he realized that Staal is actually better than Danault lol.

Okay, so there's no risk then? You just wouldn't like it. Got it. Who says it's the 62nd overall pick? There's no guarantee. It's really hard to repeat. Could be a much lower pick. You're presuming (for the sake of argument) the worse case scenario, which is odd because when you talk about things like player development you always presume the best case scenario for the guys you like and the worst case for guys you don't (like you did above with Johnson and Killorn). It's almost like you pick and choose when to be optimistic/pessimistic based on how convenient it is for your argument. Something tells me you'd bend over backward defending the value of 2nd round picks if it was for a player you wanted.