kipwinger

I'd be targeting Buffalo and Colorado in a trade back. If we get a little lucky, and the lottery doesn't turn out as well for one of them as they'd like, we might be in a position to offer our higher first and one of our 2nds for both of their firsts. We would need luck on our side, but it's not that much of a stretch.

Don't look now but Bowen Byram is having one heck of a season. Kid has all the tools to be a top defender in the league. Hard not to think about a trade back scenario here. I still think I want Zegras at 3, given that I think he's going to be that damn good, but depending on how the lottery shakes out there's potential here to get a really good player and another higher end pick.

I wasn't even sure Ted Lindsay COULD die, so in a way this news sorta restores faith in my worldview.

Why does Sean Avery look like an old lesbian now?

It's not that I don't like Turcotte, it's that I like Zegras a lot. Turcotte is a two-way guy that coaches love, and I presume he gets a lot of minutes as a result. With Larkin and Veleno already in the fold I don't want another two way guy. His coach has already called Zegras a "one and half way player", insinuating he doesn't play a two-way game yet, and looks primarily for offense. That's what I want. I'd prefer the high end offensive guy, let him develop his defensive game along the way. Zegras is putting up REALLY good offensive numbers on a team with Hughes. On any other team he'd likely be the top line center and score even more than he already does. As a matter of fact, with Hughes out of the lineup during the WJC and with Turcotte injured Zegras was promoted to the top line center position and scored like a madman. At one point he had the same PPG as Hughes did until Jack returned and got the lion's share of the offense back. I'd probably rank Turcotte right after Krebs in my list above, though I view the two of them as being largely interchangeable.

Nah man, Zegras is where it's at. Dude's gonna be awesome. I think he's got the most offense out of the top guys (except Hughes). He's been buried behind Hughes and Turcotte and still is putting up really good points for the USNTDP.

In the 3-5 range I like Zegras/Dach/Cozens in that order. Then Newhook/Krebs if we draft later than 5th.

What do you mean "no"? Rasmussen is on the same trajectory. Fact. Both were drafted, played a draft plus one year in their junior leagues, and then skipped the AHL and went to the NHL. There's no debate there. You're making it seem like the Wings' were forced to do that when the truth is they could have easily left Rasmussen with Tri-City if he wasn't NHL ready. He was. And that's not really surprising given that he was a top ten pick. You're welcome to interpret Draper's comments however you want to. Twice in that interview he brought up prospects getting to the NHL quicker than they had previously, and even compared Rasmussen to Larkin. If you think that's just a coincidence then have at it pal. Draper said this in February of last year, sure sounds like a plan and not a team "stuck" with a guy because he's not eligible to play in the AHL: "Dan Cleary is out west right now watching Michael Rasmussen and Dennis Cholowski. Those guys have really made some big strides. We hope they can continue in their development, that they have a big summer. We need to expedite this process. We need to get these kids bigger and faster and stronger, quicker, to come in and start challenging for spots." " We think Dylan Larkin is going to be an outstanding Red Wing for a long time. In him, Anthony Mantha, Andreas Athanasiou and Tyler Bertuzzi, we feel we have four real good young players. Then we have Cholowski who’s made a big step from last year to this year. Rasmussen, too. They can get here to the NHL faster these days with all the training they have at their disposal, like skating coaches. Then they need the passion, they need to love the game of hockey, and if they have all that, then they can get here faster than what we used to see. But that’s on them to come in and have an opportunity and take it. It starts with development camp, prospect tournament, training camp."

As I've stated elsewhere he's on the exact same developmental trajectory as Larkin was and Zadina is. Totally befitting a top ten pick. Also, prior to the season both Ryan Martin and Kris Draper discussed how the Wings were interested in speeding up the development process to get some of the more talented prospects into the NHL faster. They did exactly that with Rasmussen and now you and KRsmith are suggesting that they didn't really want to do it, but HAD to because he was ineligible for the AHL. Seems like confirmation bias to me.

First Bold: So Rasmussen jumped several NHL players on the depth chart and you're using this as proof that he would have started in the AHL if he could? Ok, man. Rasmussen (and Zadina) is on the exact same developmental trajectory as Larkin. Drafted, played outside the NHL in his draft plus one season, played in the NHL the year after that. Given how skilled he is, and now physically mature he is, this seems totally reasonable to me. Zadina, being more skilled than both Larkin AND Rasmussen is playing his draft plus one in the highest non-NHL league in North America, he'll be in the NHL next year. So kudos to him. But they're all on the same developmental trajectory and should be. Second Bold: Yes, I did watch the games. He did everything he should have done to prove he'd be dominant at the AHL level. Won puck battles, scored goals in front of the net, hung on to the puck and made plays (particularly below the goal line), was great on the cycle. And did it all against top AHL competition. Maybe the reason he didn't seem dominant to you was because he was recovering from injury, and not because he's not obviously too good for that league.

That's a different question. You asked "Do you think if he was AHL eligible he would be playing in the NHL regardless?". My answer is "yes" because clearly Detroit had a need for two rookies this season, and he's one of the best two. Here you go changing things again. Is the question now "what's best for Michael Rasmussen's development"? It has everything to do with it. There were two open roster spots in Detroit at the beginning of the season. Rasmussen and Ehn filled those spots. You're making it seem like Rasmussen is only in the NHL because he can't be sent to the AHL, when in reality two rookies were going to make the NHL team this year and I don't know why Rasmussen wouldn't have been one of them.

Again, Christopher Ehn made the team out of camp and played most of the season. Is your position that if Rasmussen had AHL eligibility that he'd be lower on the depth chart than both Ehn AND another GR forward? Someone has to take that spot. I don't think the evidence backs this up at this point. If there was reason to believe, based on his play this year, that Quinn Hughes was going to be a better NHL player than Rasmussen then I'd make the trade. But I don't think his play has backed that up. He might be better, he might not. And because I don't feel convinced, I wouldn't make the trade. Edit: Further, Hughes' play hasn't convinced me that he's any better than the small, offensive, power play specialist we've already got (Filip Hronek). So I DEFINITELY wouldn't trade away someone with Rasmussens's upside for him.

Don't know. I know in the three AHL games he played he looked totally dominant. Enough to earn a call up had he started the season there. So, maybe? I mean, Christopher Ehn made the team out of camp and played a bunch of games. So, why do you think Rasmussen would play in the AHL? There were open NHL roster spots and Ras is clearly better than Ehn and Frk, so yeah, he probably would have made the big club regardless of AHL eligibility.

Correct, never trade a player for another player if there's a good reason to believe the second player will not turn out better than the first. You don't have to be as smart as me. You could be as smart as the actual Kip Winger. Because even a washed up, druggie, hair metal rocker from the 80's probably knows not to trade something for something else without knowing that the later has more value than the former. Do you seriously think it's a good idea to trade something without knowing the value of the thing you're getting back? Because I've got this mystery box...

Is being "sent down" only to Grand Rapids now? He had another year of junior eligibility. If he was so un-worthy of an NHL roster spot he could have been sent down. Lots of other players from his draft class still are.

I think he was saying that Rasmussen looked "dominant" when sent down to Grand Rapids for his conditioning stint. He had two goals in three games. Hence his reference to small sample size.

Rasmussen absolutely COULD be sent down, to Tri-City, according to the very same rules of Junior eligibility that all other Junior players are governed by. Wings management decided he was too good for that, was NHL ready, and kept him on the big club instead of sending him back. This "he couldn't be sent down" crap is just another attempt by the same old crowd to make up fake talking points to justify their own irrational points of view.

You willingness to obfuscate in order to cover up your dopey preferences is admirable. I said multiple times I don't know who will be better in the long turn. Which is why it would be a stupid trade. Because you don't know what you'd be getting out of Hughes. I also don't think "most people" would say Hughes has the higher ceiling after his so-so freshman year in the NCAA. At the very least an honest evaluator would probably conclude that Hughes' NHL projection is up in the air right now, which is EXACTLY why you shouldn't trade someone like Rasmussen for him. And yes, you did say Hughes was a better player than Rasmussen. I've bolded it below. Stop trying to wiggle out of this. It's genuinely pathetic. At the very least stick to your guns, as misguided and cringeworthy as they are. I also like how you keep saying "most people think" or "most agree". Who are these people? You and Pronman in his preseason rankings? You say Hughes is a better player/prospect and I keep asking what you're basing that on. Why not tell us? Give us a breakdown why Hughes is better based on his play up to this point and not based on more made up crap.

I agree that ideally you wouldn't want Abby and Nielsen (Helm, Glenny, Dekeyser, Ericsson too) on their current contracts. But I also don't think it hurts us that much given how many ELCs we have on the books in the coming years. My bigger issue with the roster is the presence of guys like De La Rose and Ehn. Abby-Glen-Helm is a decent enough 4th line. It's a HORRIBLE 3rd line. That's a depth problem and one that will hopefully be solved with the additions of Zadina, Svech, and possible Veleno in the next year to year and a half. Plus whomever we draft this year with our top pick, and potentially some free agents, as well.

First you said Hughes "IS a better player/prospect", and then backed off that because it's based on nothing and suggested I misinterpreted you. Then you claim I'm acting like Rasmussen "IS and WILL BE" better when the bolded above shows I clearly don't think that and clearly said so. This is just another in a long list of examples where you say something ridiculous and then either completely change your argument or create some phony strawman in order to not seem absurd and arbitrary.

I've already said multiple times that I'm not sure who "will be" better (I've explicitly said so twice). I've only said who I think IS better and why I think so. If you're going to make up arguments in order to rebut them then I don't know what to tell you. Again, I just wish we were GMs. How does Hughes fill a greater team need? We already have Filip Hronek, who is exactly like Hughes except that's he's playing better at a higher level. We literally have nobody in our organization like Rasmussen. If you think that having a quality net front guy is important, and most people do, then it's hard to conclude that Rasmussen doesn't fill a greater need given what our prospect pool looks like.

I didn't "interpret" anything any particular way. You said "most would agree Hughes IS a better player". You didn't qualify it in any way in your original post. If that's not what you meant then you should be more precise. I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them. I don't know who will be better in the long run. I think Rasmussen is definitely better than Hughes now based on that fact that he's having a decent NHL rookie year while Hughes is having a decent freshman year in the NCAA. Neither of them are even close to their ceilings. So trading our big winger for an offensive defenseman, especially considering we've got a rookie offensive defenseman who's playing great in the NHL, seems like a bad idea to me because it's so obviously premature.

Pronman's ranking was made pre-season. Since then Hughes has been OK in college hockey, and Rasmussen has been OK in the NHL. But that's not what I asked. You said Hughes was already is a BETTER PLAYER than Rasmussen. Care to explain what you've based that assessment on? The reason I bring up Werenski is because Quinn Hughes is supposed to be an elite offensive defenseman, but he's not having an elite offensive season relative to other elite caliber defensemen in the same situation. And unlike Werenski he's neither big, nor defensively adept, so if he's not putting up big points he's not really having much of an impact elsewhere. Meanwhile, Rasmussen is playing in the hardest league in the world, is getting quality developmental time including on the powerplay (where we hope he's going to be lethal one day), and he definitely looks like a 20+ goal guy going forward. You're welcome to like whomever you want, but I wish we were both GMs. I'd gladly take all your decent 19 year old NHL rookies for my decent 19 year old NCAA freshmen.

Based on what? Hughes is currently scoring at a slower clip than Zach Werenski did at Michigan his freshman year, but instead of being 6'2, 200 lbs, and a stud defender, he's 5'10, 175 lbs, and is not especially good defensively at all. I venture to guess if you just looked at his performance, size, and deficiencies, and didn't know he was Quinn Hughes you wouldn't be all that impressed. Which is exactly my point. Quinn Hughes may turn out to be a good NHLer, maybe even better than Rasmussen But at this point that's FAR from certain and definitely not a slam dunk.

Trading a top 10 pick and one of the organization's most promising young players counts as a pretty significant price. Particularly when we've already got an guy who looks like he'll be an undersized, top 3, offensive defensemen and powerplay specialist. And we don't have anyone like Rasmussen in our organization As for the 2nd line winger vs. top 3 defenseman, depends on what they're good at and what you've got a lot of. If the winger makes your powerplay lethal because he's so good around the net then maybe he's the more valuable piece because he's so specialized. I know when Holmostrom was on the team nobody was clamoring to trade him for anything, let alone an offensive defenseman who isn't likely going to be a #1 top guy (given his small stature and defensive shortcomings).