kipwinger

Didn't suggest that you should listen to me. I also have no idea why he slid on draft day. I guess my question would be, what does his draft position have to do with anything? You're not dumb, so surely you'll agree that players outperform their draft positions all the time. So the bigger questions are, does Joe Veleno have the necessary skills to be one of those players? And, based on his performance since the draft is there any reason to believe he's already moving in that direction. I think the answer to both questions is "yes".

Isn't knee-jerk undervaluing prospects and players just as intellectually lazy as knee-jerk overvaluing them? If you think the odds are that Veleno will end up like Sheahan, Smith, Jurco, Pulkkinen, or Sproul why not explain your rationale? Your current reasoning that "Veleno won't be that good because other guys weren't good in the past" seems too trite for someone clever enough to be meta while also being incendiary. Step your game up...like Joe Veleno has.

I said the same thing about Michael Rasmussen. I was wrong. Plus, Veleno is one of the younger guys in that draft class. Still only 18. So while he's got more experience than the younger guys in the league, he's really not that much older. Developmental paths are tricky. Two years ago, after his year at St. Cloud State (draft year plus one), Cholowski was considered a bust. He then dominated Juniors the following year and the rest is history.

I'll be honest, I'd rather have Cozens than Hughes. I haven't really had a chance to look too much into the defensemen in this class yet. Superficially it seems like a thin year for defense, but I don't know. I definitely don't like Byram (seems to have limited offensive upside). Newhook's my guy though. Dynamic offense...gets me every time.

My boy Alex Newhook is tumbling down a lot of draft boards for no discernable reason. He's tearing up the BCHL and has looked good so far at Canada's World Junior Camp. Yet Craig Button currently has him sitting at 22, while Sportanet has him at 15. We're really going to need another first rounder this year.

Hearing good things about Malte Setkov this year as well. Most teams' defensive prospect pool is not much beyond 3-4 deep. I'd argue that ours is basically in line with what most other teams have in the pipeline when you consider Cholowski, Hronek, McIsaac, Saarijarvi, Sulak, Setkov, Barton are all looking (various degrees of) good and we really only need 3ish to pan out. Gustav Lindstrom is a sleeper here too.

That was the point of my original post. First, that trading from say 12 to 8 is probably much more doable than trading from 15 to 5 (for instance). And secondly, that you should only do so if your scouts think there's a game changer (like Petterson) who's still available. Of course their are no guarantees. But just because you're not guaranteed doesn't mean you shouldn't increase your odds. Normally I'd advocate for picking as often as possible too. I guess my point is that if we all agree that you need game breaking talent to win a Cup and not just a bunch of mid first rounders, then it might be worth moving up because most of the game breaking talent in the league today comes in the top part of the first round.

The point was that there are game changers available in the 5-10 range frequently enough that having the assets to move into the top ten is generally worth it. Particularly if game breaking talent is what you're missing out on. Certainly a higher probability of success doing that then hoping you get one of those rare gems who turn into top end talent despite being picked later in the draft.

Didn't Vancouver just get Elias Petterson with the 6th pick two years ago? If there's a guy with game breaking potential in the top 10 you move up to get him. Some years those types of players may be there. Some years they aren't. My point is that you're more likely to find that kind of player in the top 10, so having the extra picks to move up (if you think you've found a guy like that) is key. We've already got a team of mid-1st round talent. Now we need some game changers.

Sure, but that changes with each draft class.

Depends on where we land in the lottery. Moving from 18th to 5th is pretty tough. But moving from 12th to 7-10th might not be as difficult.

Nobody is saying elite players don't occasionally come from outside the top part of the draft. What I'm saying is, elite players are typically at the top part of the first round and if you want to increase the odds that you'll find and elite player, moving into the top part of the draft is probably your best bet.

Sell everyone you can sell and package those pics to get as high up in the draft as you can get. We need top end talent and we're not going to get it outside the top 5-10.

Don't worry. I've already given my letter of resignation to Stephen Walkom, NHL Director of Officiating. I'm sure the Wings will be back to playoff contention in no time. Yes, because that quote clearly implicates each and every Red Wings fan and wasn't obviously directed at the dummies who complain about the refs constantly. Good call. Hear me out, I know this will be a journey... In a game with 6 total penalties, 3 for each team, one powerplay each in regulation, one set of offsetting penalties, and one each for a "roughly" half minute of overtime...I'd say the refs were pretty much as impartial as they could possibly be.

I'm not judging a WHOLE fan base. I'm judging those fans who complain about the refs. I don't complain about the refs, and I'm a fan, and there are others like me. So basically I'm just judging people like YOU. And no, I don't watch the NFL. It's a dumb sport for dummies. I don't drink Mountain Dew or listen to Five Finger Death Punch either in case you're wondering.

I did officiate a few midget games when I was in college. So obviously I've got it out for the Wings.

Dude, people around LGW have been claiming a league wide conspiracy against the Wings for YEARS. Tons of fans, including some commenting tonight, actually believe Gary Bettman rigged the 2009 Cup because he wanted Crosby to win and the Wings to lose. If you think there isn't an asinine "conspiracy theorist" faction of Red Wings fans around here then I don't know what to tell you. And as I've said several times now, I'm commenting on that idiotic tendency collectively and not just based on this one game. But as you correctly pointed out, if you don't like what I've got to say, ignore me.

No, you should complain about thing that are actually happening. Like, if you find yourself thinking there's a league wide bias against your favorite sports team you shouldn't complain. Because that's crazy and unsubstantiated.

I DO wish you deplorables would get on my level and stop complaining about the officiating. That's my whole crusade in a nutshell. It's idiotic, and isn't part of "fandom" anymore than getting drunk and talking s*** to fans of the away team is part of fandom (i.e. It's obnoxious). If I'm being obnoxious too, but in the other direction, then so be it. Maybe I can't beat you, but I certainly don't have to join you.

I tell you what, I'll stop being condescending if you'll stop complaining about the officiating. Deal? I made a one-off comment about how dumb it is to complain and everyone who was doing it immediately responded because...ready for this...they don't want to be told that the thing they're doing is dumb. I'm not sure why YOU didn't ignore ME if that's how you think this stuff is supposed to go.

It's dumb no matter who does it. That's my point.

Not sure if you've been paying attention or not, but there hasn't been standards around LGW in months.

Wait, so you can drone on and one for pages about how bad the officiating is but if I make fun of people like you for a few pages I'm too wrapped up? Pot? This is the kettle. You're black.

Well if you don't see it then it's probably not true. Like global warming or evolution am I right?

If it stayed in your head it was a thought. If you "stated" your thought then it was a statement. Words mean things.