kipwinger

While I think it's pretty unlikely, I do think there's room for Veleno to make the team if it's clear he's ready from camp. However, two things would have to happen and neither are likely. At center, any of AA, Glendening, or Nielsen would be moved to the wing . Larkin, AA/Nielsen/Glendening, Veleno isn't out of the realm of possibility. Or he could do like Larkin and break in on the wing, but that's even more unlikely given that he'd have to leap frog Zadina, Svech, and Rasmussen to do it. I think odds are that he'll play a full year in GR and breaks in at center a year from now.

I genuinely don't understand why everybody is so quick to get rid of Abby. I get that his production has curtailed the last few seasons but his ice time has fallen by about 3 minutes per game since his career highs in 2015 and 2016. And that reduction is ice is EXACTLY what everybody wanted in the first place. Now the big complaint is that he doens't score. The reasoning is pretty circular. Then people freak out about his contract, which has not affected the team negatively in any conceivable way. So I can't understand that one either. Then they say he's eating up a roster spot, but when guys like Ehn, De La Rose, Witkowski, and Frk are on the team it's pretty hard to argue that roster spots are at a premium. I say let his contract run out. And in the mean time let him be a good locker room guy. Let him teach the kids how to work out like a pro, eat like a pro, practice like a pro, be responsible on roadtrips, hold them accountable on the ice, and all that. And all the while keep reducing his role as other guys peak until he's a regular scratch. That would cost the team nothing and might actually benefit the organization in the long term.

Bob McKenzie's final draft rankings for anybody who's interested: https://www.tsn.ca/americans-set-to-dominate-first-round-of-the-nhl-draft-1.1323878 Edit: Bob's got Brayden Tracey at 36, which is pretty interesting. Kid had a really solid year in the WHL and put up some nice numbers. Definitely a name I hadn't heard up to this point.

I actually don't agree with this. The knock on Helm and Abby and Neilsen is their price, not their ability. ALL of them have shown they're better players than De La Rose (for instance). And since we're in no cap trouble at all I don't see why you'd move on from guys who are obviously better than the younger guys. Again, maybe if you were up against the cap and need to re-sign someone, but we aren't. I'd much rather have Helm or Abby in the lineup than Ehn or De La Rose. I just don't want them playing anything more than fourth line minutes. Barring any trades for free agent signings my fourth line next year would be Helm-Glendening-Abby. Neilsen would center the third line (until injured or Veleno shows he's ready for a call up in GR) and one of Ehn or De La Rose would be in the press box.

Ok, then from your point of view he'd be one of the four you keep in lineup. De La Rose goes, and one of Ehn, Helm, Abby, or Glendening sits. You just can't having five roster spots going to guys who can't score. And definitely not five roster spots across multiple lines. There's a reason our offense is trash. Aside from the powerplay a big part of it is that each line is basically saddled with one or two guys who have essentially zero offensive ability.

I basically agree with this. We essentially had two fourth lines last year when you consider many nights we dressed Glendening, Helm, Abby, Ehn, and De La Rose. None of those guys are really good enough to play regularly above a fourth line (maybe Helm or Glendening in a pinch). We definitely don't want to repeat that lineup if we're looking to win here. IMO you pick the four best of those guys (or the four you can't trade maybe) and make three of the your 4th line, and one of them your extra forward. In no way should any more than three of those guys be in the lineup on a nightly basis.

In a vacuum, yes. He's a really solid player. But I think we're in really good shape on the wings between Bert, Mantha, Zadina, AA, Hirose, Svech, and Rasmussen.

Here goes: 1: I'm not saying "Boqvist isn't better than a 2nd rounder". He's better than lots of 2nd rounder probably. I'm saying that based on his offensive track record prior to the draft he should probably have been drafted somewhere closer to McIsaac than Hughes or Bouchard, and that Chicago didn't get proper value for their pick because they took him too early. I'm also saying that is very likely what will happen if someone drafts Broberg too early given that he has historically produced about a much offense as Gustav Lindstrom, a guy who nobody expects to provide offense in the NHL. In a regular year Broberg likely goes toward the later half of the first round or beginning of the 2nd. But it's a weak draft class for defensemen so he's a hot commodity despite his lack of actual accomplishments. 2: If one needs scouting experience to talk about the NHL draft on a Red Wings message board then LGW wouldn't exist. We're all playing fantasy hockey of sorts, and some of us are trying to do so logically. Falling back on "well you're not a pro scout and neither am I" is lazy, but also defeats the purpose of joining the board in the first place. 3: That wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making is that every year people say "it's a toss up between picks 3 and 12, or 4 and 10, or 5 and 11" or whatever. And if you look back at past drafts, or do a redraft you realize that isn't true. There's pretty much always separation between the players everyone thinks are in the same tier. A year ago everyone said Hughes, Bouchard, Boqvist, and Dobson were all a "toss up". Looks like a bad take to me. So I disagree with you when you say that after the first two picks it's all up in the air (paraphrasing your argument). There's going to be MASSIVE separation between the 6th best player in this draft and the 12th. It behooves the Red Wings to figure out who's better than who, and a good place to start narrowing down their options is to look at who has historically dominated their respective leagues and who hasn't. Hint: Broberg hasn't. 4: I don't. I just said that those scouting reports (which may be wrong) tend to compare Broberg to guys who have tended to put up pedestrian offensive numbers in the NHL. Maybe it's just a stylistic comparison and he'll be better than Klefbom, Stralman, or whomever. But it's a risky bet to assume a guy who doesn't score well in a 2nd tier Swedish league is going to start scoring more in the AHL or NHL. 5: 38 points is pretty mediocre for an "offensive" NHL defenseman. For reference, Matt Niskanen scored 39 points as a 30 yo in 2017. It wasn't even his best season. So again, if you wanna classify Klefbom as an offensive defenseman that's fine, he's a pretty average one. Unless you're impressed by guys whose best years are roughly equal to a 32 yo journeyman defender's 2nd best season. Not the kind of upside you want to see if you're taking Broberg with a top ten pick. 6: Edmonton's defense is a nighmare. Being their best "offensive" defenseman is like being the best Special Olympic Hurdler. Being a better point man on the powerplay than Darnell Nurse or Adam Larsson is hardly a feather in your cap. Who the hell else was going to do it? Even with all those sweat powerplay minutes (minutes he wouldn't get on a decent team) he still couldn't crack 40 points. But he's "offensive"? 7: Already been discussed. 8: I've never denied Broberg's physical tools. Just don't think those alone are worth a top ten pick and that any team who does so will be taking a significant risk considering it's easier for a kid to grow, or improve their skating, after he's drafted than to suddenly develop skills he's never had. Again, all of those things applied to McIsaac and I certainly think he would have been a reach in the top ten. 9: Already discussed.

This one?

Do you think that NBA or NFL guys are just as happy when they win championships as NHL guys are, or do you think their elation is slightly diminished by the fact that their trophy looks childish? Like, this could just as easily be a picture of Jeremy Lin after winning a Gus Macker 3 on 3 with his mom and kid brother and nobody would really know the difference.

Aren't you the guy who responded "nerd" to my well constructed post a page or so ago. Didn't realize I owed you anything Your Highness.

No, I didn't read it. I can't be bothered to go back that many pages. You crib noted it for me when you said "Lol did you just read my post comparing him to Helm a few posts back where I talked about his IQ and not knowing what to do with the puck? Thanks for parroting it back to me." Seems like a pretty straight forward, and damning, summary of your comparison and Broberg's "offensive" talent. Though, I'll allow for the fact that maybe I'm taking you out of context and that when you compared Broberg's puck skills and IQ to Helm's it was actually a compliment.

Don't draft an "offensive" defensemen whose offensive skills you've compared to Darren Helm in the top of the first round is a sinking ship argument? Ok. Guilty.

It's a weak year for jokes, so it's easily a B- given how athletic it seems on its Youtube highlights package. And speaking of packages, tell your mom I've got something for her. A package. Get it? What's in the package? A book detailing the benefits of a gluten free diet. Progressivism starts at home you batch of deplorables. @Dabura

Sounds familiar. Who said that? Seems like something an extremely handsome, educated, and generally well endowed guy would say right before he signed off LGW to bang all your wives. Weak. That's the Jimmy Howard of LGW responses. Which, by your standards, means it's probably a top ten post.

Wait, I've spent all this time explaining why I wouldn't take Broberg in the Top Ten of the draft and you're readily admitting he's the Darren Helm of defensemen? In the future save me the time and start with that doozie of an opening gambit. Me: Seriously, that guy sucks there's no way we should trade for him! You: I don't think you understand where I'm coming from, he's basically the Luke Glendening of goalies! Me: Seems dumb. You: Professional scouts might disagree. Me: Touche.

Sure, but that's true of basically every single Canadian and American being discussed in the top 15 to 20 as well. And as much as everyone acts like the difference between 6 and 12 (for instance) is a roll of the dice, a franchise rebuild literally depends on getting it right. So you've got to use some set of metrics for separation and I'd say that failing to dominate your respective league (despite heavily touted offensive ability) might be the kind of thing that stops you from drafting a guy at 6 who might better be drafted at 12, again, for instance.

Not too familiar with their prospect pool, I've heard some people mention Raddysh and Barre-Boulet but I don't know enough about them to say. I know their farm system is weak, and they've traded a lot of picks in recent years, so maybe trade one of our 2nd rounders plus whatever throw in is necessary to make the deal work, for Callahan and one of their better prospects. But again, I don't know their farm too well.

Only person I'd acquire this offseason is Ryan Callahan. Take him for a year, get the pick/prospect, and leave the UFAs for next year when we sign Trouba. Callahan can have Vanek's spot, Witkowski, and Frk will be gone and there's not harm in keeping Ehn down/waiving De La Rose if we really really want some combination of Zadina, Rasmussen, or Svech up this year. Lottery pick here we come baby!

Nobody advocated taking Tyler Bertuzzi, or Smith, or McIsaac in the Top Ten of the draft. And I'd argue that if you take a draft pick (whether Boqvist or Broberg) that high and they end up being similarly productive to players taken in the 2nd round then you've probably misused that pick. Especially if there were warning signs (e.g. poor history of offensive production) prior to drafting him. Again, I'm not arguing that Broberg won't be good. I'm arguing against taking him too high in the draft. Something you've said you don't prefer, but you'd "be fine with". I very much wouldn't be fine with it. I'm just giving you my reasons why. Broberg seems like a guy who's benefiting a lot from being a defenseman in a weak defensive class. Buyer beware. Maybe it's a philosophical difference. I don't think you should draft anyone in the top ten you don't assess to have "star" level upside. And having a history of mediocre production at lower levels would certainly make me doubt whether a guy like Broberg has that kind of upside. The odds of finding a legit difference maker outside the Top Ten are so diminished that I think you've wasted your best possible chance of getting one if you play it safe with high picks. Doesn't mean you can't find them, obviously, just means you're not playing the odds like you should IMO.

I was spearheading the Brendan Smith hate, for the same reasons I don't like Broberg. "Offensive" defensemen who don't score very much aren't really bringing a lot to the table. They're certainly not a value pick at the top of the first round. Boqvist is a great example of what I'm talking about. He's guy who was heralded for his "offensive" ability despite not having provided much offense in his draft year. Then he comes over and scores as well as Jared McIsaac, who we took with a 2nd round pick, in his draft plus one year. The only way I'm ok using a top ten pick on a guy with supposed big offensive upside, but who hasn't found the scoresheet regularly, is if they're playing in a top league. Otherwise, we shouldn't overthink it. Broberg is getting a lot of play this year because he's one of the better defensemen in an extremely weak defensive draft class. A year ago this guy would be considered a later first rounder.

You're doing the same thing people used to do with Brendan Smith. You can't be an "offensive" defenseman if you don't contribute much offensively. Or, if one insists on saying he's "offensive" stylistically then he's not a very good offensive defenseman. I bring up Lindstrom's stats, and their similarities, because nobody would call Lindstrom an "offensive" defenseman despite the fact that he produces just as much offense as Broberg (whom everyone calls offensive). So why is one "offensive" and the other isn't? I agree with your characterization of Broberg's skills. By all accounts he's very fast, big, and all that. But NONE of that has helped him score very much. And if he's as bad defensively as you suggest, and he doesn't have a history of producing much offense then why the hell would anybody want him this high in the draft? Because despite his track record we're just SURE he's going to break out when he gets to the SEL, or the AHL, or the NHL? Seems like a bad bet to me. Especially for a rebuilding team with a high pick in a deep draft.

My "shutdown" comment was in reference to Oscar Klefbom, to whom Broberg has been compared by the same dorks who compare Hughes to Connor McDavid. The biggest differences in our perceptions are probably based on a few things. But first let me explain my standard for evaluation. Tangible evidnece I value the most, then testimonial evidence, then intangible things (like potential). So... First, Broberg's offensive output is extremely pedestrian given where we're drafting this year. As I've already mentioned, Gustav Lindstrom produced at the same rate in Sweden's 2nd tier league, and at a better rate against his peers, in his draft year. NOBODY around here thinks that guy should have gone 6th overall. We're not talking about a Rasmus Dahlin here. We're not even talking about a guy playing in Sweden's top league as a draft eligible. We're talking about a guy who produced modestly in a 2nd tier league. Second, I tend not to put a ton of stock into scouting reports from big media types like Craig Button. These rankings are, by and large, the standard rankings by which most of the fans/bloggers/etc. develop their impressions of players early on because they're the first ones we see. I don't do that for a few reasons. These guys don't actually scout anyone, and only watch tape. Also, they seem to be extremely susceptible to recency bias (Caufield and Boldy are both in Button's top 5 in his final rankings for instance). Rather, when looking for an outside opinion I prefer Pronman, who actually does scout players in person. This is extremely important for European players in particular because a lot of people opining on them have never actually seen them play at all. Pronman is very skeptical of Broberg's offense. Likewise, when people do opine on Broberg the players he's most frequently compared to are NOT difference makers. Guys like Klefbom, Anton Stralman, and Matthias Ekholm. All good players, none of which I'd take at 6th overall when guys like Zegras, Cozens, Dach, Caufield, or Krebs will still be on the board. Third, this high in the draft I'm extremely skeptical of players who "need to put it all together". While I understand that all players need further developmental time and none are as good as they're going to be, most of the top of the draft guys have demonstrated that they're elite in their respective leagues prior to the draft. For example, Cozens' goal scoring as a draft eligible was significantly better than say Joe Veleno's was. His production was better too. He's clearly dominating his league in a way that later 1st round guys don't. Broberg is closer to the latter than the former. Potential is good, and I'd rather my prospects have it than not, but with this high of a pick in this deep of a draft I need to see something more tangible than "he's got all the physical tools". If I put together a highlight real of all the awesome s*** I did this year, and none of the lame stuff, you'd probably be washing my car or something right now. What's it like to be so impressed by shiny things?

I've heard that too. My issue with him is that none of this has translated to actual offense. I want a proven player with a top ten pick. Guys who have all the tools but still haven't figured out how to "put it all together" are perfect for later in the draft and I'd have no problem taking Podkolzin, Broberg, or the like if we had the 20th pick or something. But in a draft this deep with proven offensive producers I don't see why you'd take a flier on a guy that hasn't figured out how to consistently find the scoresheet with the 6th overall pick.