kipwinger

Yeah, it's a s*** job. That's why retired players who don't need the money, and are used to the travel, are always doing it.

Only if you think that being thrown into Edmonton's lineup as an 18 year old top line center, during the bad old McTavish/Lowe days, was some sort of "advantage" and not a detriment. I don't agree. But nevertheless, the stats don't lie. RNH scores at a higher rate, over a longer period of time, than Larkin does.

I'm gonna say no. While in the old days Ken Holland might be tempted to break him in on the wing (and then pretend like no prospect has ever broken into the league at center), I don't think Yzerman operates that way. And since we've got about 400 s***ty centers on one-way contracts I'm guessing that barring injury he'll start in the AHL.

He scores more points, in fewer minutes, with roughly the same tough usage and he's just as good defensively. But other than that? No good reason.

Isn't that dude perpetually afflicted by some sort of rash? Talk about infected.

You'll love me in a few years when you've got a defense corps of... MsIsaac-Hronek Cholo-Lindstrom Regula-Seider Kaski

And RNH. Don't forget him. He's better than Larkin.

I do. Aren't they better than we are though?

Because his current gig probably pays WAY better than your average NHL scout? Yeah, he's higher on Seider for sure. I've seen those articles. One of the things I generally like about the guy is that he routinely re-drafts and shows what he got wrong. Not many people in any profession who are willing to do that.

I mean, if you want an older, s***tier, player then sure. Why not? Why would I mean something dumb?

Our centers are going to be so sick when we sign Ryan Nugent-Hopkins after this year and rolls Larkin, RNH, and Veleno in the top 9. So nasty.

Well, I mean The Athletic's subscriber base is projected to surpass a million before the end of the year. So a big part of why he's being quoted more is because he's being seen more. But you don't even get that job unless you're frequently right about prospects. I read somewhere that Pronman's accuracy rate for the first round (meaning which 31 players go first, not order) is insanely high. I'll try to dig up where I found that. I'd be curious to know the extent to which your standard North American (or European) scout could accurately pick the top 31 guys off the board. I know NHL central scouting does two different lists so they don't even bother. It's not an easy job by any measure.

You mean you don't enjoy watching adult men act like doofy man-babies?

I know. It was a cheap dig. But you're holding Pronman to a standard you don't even hold NHL executives to. If he can't even be wrong (which remains to be seen on Seider) once or twice per first round, then he can never be right. And that also ignores the fact that Steve Yzerman, as GM, has been VERY wrong in his 1st round selections in the past. In other words, if saying Moritz Seider is a 29th caliber pick when he's really a 6th caliber pick makes Pronman's evaluations suspect, then what does taking Brett Connolly at 6th overall make Yzerman's?

C'mon, Sandler hasn't been funny since when? Big Daddy?

Say the draft plays out like.. Hughes, Kakko, Byram, Cozens, Zegras (which was entirely plausible), then chances are that we aren't even talking about Seider at 6th. My point, which I made badly, is that it's not as though Yzerman had some keen insight into Seider. There's a good chance he wasn't "Yzerman's guy", he was just the best of what was left. If reports are to be believed (take them with a grain of salt if you want) then he was interested in two other guys more. One or two different selections by other teams, which are entirely out of Yzerman's control, and Seider very likely DOES go in the 15-20 range (anticipated by most). His selection at 6th says more about how the board shook out, and about how little Yzerman and co. thought about Zegras and Cozens as it does about how much they really liked Seider.

You've got that part wrong. The guy personally watches thousands of prospects each year and augments his observations with others' observations (including scouts and managers) in order to minimize bias. Very different than, say, a Craig Button (who also was a scout and manager himself) who tends to defer to video. I know your tribe isn't too high on media types these days, but it's not like they got some dumbf*ck to opine on these guys.

I'm not even sure this part is true though. Quite a number of reports from the accursed media had Dach and Turcotte at the top of Detroit's board. If Zegras or Cozens goes top 5, as was widely expected, it's not really that hard to see how Seider might not have even whiffed the top 15. Which is all to say that it's hard to say that Yzerman A) wanted Seider all along at 6th, or B) thought Seider was the 6th best player in the draft. It only really means that 5 other players they may have liked more were gone AND nobody was willing to trade up for anybody who was left.

A total hack?

I know! The nerve of this egghead, traveling around the globe watching thousands of hockey players over and over and over again and then not picking the exact order of the 1st round with 100 percent accuracy. What a d*ck. Genuine question, didn't Seider get burned for goals in both the first and second games on bad pinches? I obviously didn't watch but definitely thought I read that somewhere.

Wait, are you saying that it's premature to tell how good Seider will be without a healthy dose of personal bias and that he was a reach at 6th? Because you wouldn't believe the sh*t I caught for making both of those points recently.

And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're aware (which I'm sure you are) that A) our eyes can often deceive us, and B) other people's opinions are often more informed than our own.

A significant portion of our fanbase thought Zadina would play on the NHL club out of camp last year. That was way off base. And it became clear the minute we all realized he wasn't even an especially good AHLer yet. That's my only point. If you didn't feel that way then great. You pointing out that fact that you didn't is a demonstration of the other point I'm about to make. Which is... As far as the bolded, the only value in player projection (for a fan) is to test (and demonstrate) that you know something about the sport you're discussing. Because obviously none of us have jobs in professional hockey player evaluation. As such, overvaluing a prospect is just as useless as undervaluing one. In either case you've demonstrated that you don't know as much about that player as you thought. The only real value, again for a fan, is getting it close to right (and having intelligent reasons why you think so). Otherwise, why talk about it at all. Just sit back and wait to see how they turn out. Therefore, it's usually good to get as much quality information as you can before concluding how good a player is going to be. I know it's anathema to say so around here, but if you wanted to learn that Pearson "might" be a bottom 6 center or that Soderblom can skate well for a big man you could always just read Corey Pronman's farm system analysis of the Red Wings. He made both of those exact points. Again, lots around here act like you're an ******* if you read his stuff but he apparently gets things right from time to time.

I'll follow the team as best as I can during camp, and watch all the pre-season games. Those tend to be more illuminating than Traverse City because all the guys who obviously suck will be sent home before the preseason games start. Then obviously the AHL will be a huge step up from that.

No. Discuss anything you want. It just might be wise to hold off concluding how good a player is going to be until you've seen him play at a comparable level to the one you're projecting him in. Otherwise we may end up with egg on our collective faces the way we did with Zadina.