kipwinger

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.

I thought you and I had already discussed Podkolzin elsewhere. No, I don't. I'm skeptical of his production and think he's highly regarded not because he's effective but because he's flashy. I'd like him even less if we already had the EXACT same guy already in our prospect pool. I've said already, I like Zegras, Dach, Cozens at 6th or Krebs/Newhook in a trade back scenario. I generally don't like defensemen who don't have offense with a high 1st round selection.

You got me. I was wrong. He has undeniable skill, which is why he absolutely tore up Sweden's Allsvenskan (their 2nd level league) to the tune of 2 goals and 7 assists in 41 games this year. I haven't seen dominance like that from a draft eligible player since...wait for it...Gustav Lindstrom had the EXACT SAME production in 2017. We took that guy with the 38th overall pick BTW. So either Broberg is a big reach at 6th, or Lindstrom was the steal of the century at 38th. Either way, I'm sure it will warm your (easily impressed) little heart to know we already have a right handed, Swedish "two way" defender, with limited offensive upside in our prospect pool. And we didn't have to waste a top ten pick to get him either.

Neither, he doesn't have enough skill to close the deal.

Thanks for using "it" when referring to me. It's extremely progressive of you to be sensitive to my gender identity. Most people aren't PC enough to understand that not everyone identifies in a non-binary way. Not the case with Philip Broberg though. He's a b*tch, through and through.

Assuming all players have SOME chance of being a bust, I'd argue it's still a smarter move to draft the one with the higher ceiling. If your ceiling is "mobile shutdown defender with limited offensive upside" you probably shouldn't be drafted in the Top 10. But what do I know?

What's not to like about drafting a guy who's been compared to Oscar Klefbom with the 6th pick? I mean, that doesn't seem like a waste at all. Particularly when players with considerably more offensive upside are still available. Bold strategy Cotton.

Awesome to see O'Reilly get the Conn Smythe. Dude is pretty awesome, and had a monster playoffs. Surely the Sabres will regret trading him for peanuts now. Oh wait, it's Buffalo. No they won't.

Assuming some combination of Hughes, Kakko, Turcotte, Byram go 1-4 I've narrowed my list to: Zegras Dach Cozens Newhook (trade back scenario) Definitely not Broberg though. That guy blows.

Stop humble bragging, b*tch.

Probably. He's not ranked in the top 10 so I presume he's lazy AND he sucks. Just like LGW to want Yzerman to trade back and draft the Swedish Jay Bouwmeester. If Holland drafted that guy instead of BPA people would want to lynch him.

Broberg sucks.

Buying out Abdelkader would be retarded.

But that's not what you said, and it's also assuming a premise that's very much in debate. You said overripening never produced anything but bottom six forwards and bottom pair defensemen. I named you multiple top six forwards and top four defensemen who were "over ripened". Now it's reasonable to ask whether they would have turned out to be top guys anyway, but I don't think the evidence suggests that was obvious prior to their "over ripening". Aside from Mantha, none of the guys I mentioned were 1st round picks. None of Tatar, Hudler, AA or Bertuzzi were dominating the AHL. Datsyuk was an overager. Zetterberg wasn't even the top prospect we were scouting when we first found him. Even Mantha struggled as an AHLer (leading to the "very very disappointed" comment by Devellano). His rookie AHL season was worse than Svechnikov's. So it's not clear cut that ANY of them were "ready" for the NHL within a year of being drafted, much less ready to be top six forwards or top four defensemen.