kipwinger

An issue, no. But do I think it's an asset? Also no. I don't view him as a Blake Wheeler or Rick Nash type (e.g. big guys whose skating is very good). He reminds me more of Corey Perry or Todd Bertuzzi (e.g. gets around fine for their size). That's actually why I think he needs to take Blashill's advice and learn to play like Van Riemsdyk. I don't think his wheels (although decent for a big guy) are good enough to beat defensemen wide. I think he's basically another Franzen, which I'm thrilled about, but he'd better learn to score a bunch of different ways (like Johan did) if he's going to maximize his output at the NHL level because a sniper he ain't.

This is all a charade. I think he's known since the end of the season that he wasn't going to play and they're just saying all the right things to make it seem like an injury and not a retirement.

This is excellent news. We'll be terrible again this year. Hopefully Holland hold Zadina and Hronek out of the lineup until after he trades Nyquist and Daly at the deadline and the Wings are solidly in a lottery spot. Imagine... Bert-Larkin-Mantha Vanek-Neilsen-AA Frk-Helm-Abby Helm-Glen-Ras We'll get crushed. One more terrible year and we'll sitting pretty going into next year's draft with a boatload of picks in another deep draft. Yes please.

I'm curious, how good do you think Mantha is? Like, right now? Not what you think he projects as.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the Wings took Rasmussen at 9 because of his size and regardless of his skill. While I do think there were better players still available, they didn't "reach" on Rasmussen at all. The went almost exactly where he was projected to go all season long. He was always supposed to go 9th or 10th and he did.

For what it's worth, here's a excerpt from an Athletic article which polled NHL scouts on aspects of the 2018 draft. Here's what they had to say about Dahlin. It was no surprise to see Swedish defenceman Rasmus Dahlin as the top-pick though there was disagreement about whether he is in fact a “generational talent.” It seems like each year there’s another player being slapped with that label, so a question was posed as to whether it was a fair assessment or more so a media construct. “While he is pretty special, I think that term is getting a little overused,” said one NHL scout. “For various reasons we have to keep building these guys up.” “I think by definition a ‘generational talent’ is the best player of his generation,” said another scout. “Therefore, some of these generational talents should likely be labelled as stars. Rasmus is more of a star than a generational talent as of now.” “I think for the most part it is a media construct but I do believe as a whole, players are getting better each year because of the on ice and off ice training programs all of the kids are on starting at a young age,” said a third scout. “I think Dahlin very well could end up being a generational talent but so much goes into being in the right place at the right time. He is definitely built for today’s game.” “Generational talent gets thrown around too much,” said yet another evaluator. “By definition we should only see a few of these players in our lifetime, right? It’s not fair to put that type of label on any 17/18-year-old player. Franchise player seems more realistic. He looks like a player to build your team around.”

We're not pivoting to anything. The conversation started when I told KRSmith that it's not unreasonable to think that Pettersson and/or Svechnikov will turn out to be better players than Dahlin. He disagreed because Dahlin is "generational" . My argument is that he's not "generational". That's all hype. He's more likely to be an Ekblad than a McDavid.

You're definitely not following. My argument is that people are overly hyping Dahlin because they overhype just about every number one pick. And that he'll most likely turn out just like other number one picks, good but not "generational" as he's being labeled. I used Aaron Ekblad as an example of someone who also never lived up to the massive hype he had when he was drafted first overall. And as evidence of that hype, I pointed out that Ekblad was only the second player to be given exceptional status in probably the world's best amateur hockey league. A feat which was (at the time though not anymore) a really really big deal. But here's a simpler way of stating my argument: Since the inception of the draft in the 1960's, only one defenseman drafted 1st overall has gone on to be a "generational" player. Denis Potvin. Scores of forwards have though. So if you're trying to figure out which "top of the draft" players are going to turn out to be the best (which is how this conversation started), it's always safer to go with a forward in lieu of any other information. High end forwards are a surer bet.

No, I think Veleno wasn't as hyped as Dahlin. I think Ekblad was. I've also explained why I think so. Very clearly. Being excpetional status was a bigger deal a few years ago. Hence, Ekblad being labeled exceptional carried more weight with it than Veleno's status did. Veleno, along with Sean Day before him, is precisely why people don't think it's a big deal anymore. At the time Ekblad was drafted it was still a VERY big deal to be "excpetional" in the OHL, particularly given that 6 of the previous 13 first overall draft picks before Ekblad came from the OHL while 7 came from the rest of the world combined.

I did answer you question on Veleno by alluding to the fact that it's not really a valid argument because attitudes about "exceptional" players have changed since Ekblad's time. Veleno is clearly not as hyped as Dahlin. However, when Ekblad was drafted being an "exceptional status" player was considered a much bigger deal. After Sean Day, and now Veleno, people realize that it's pretty bogus. But the first three exceptional players were Tavares, Ekblad, and McDavid and all of them were MASSIVELY hyped. Every year since forever there's been some kid who's on another level. Since 2000 I'd say only three players have actually turned out to be generational: Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid. Tons have turned out to be very good players: Kovalchuk, Nash, Stamkos, Hall, McKinnon, etc. I think Dahlin is much more likely to be in the latter group than the former.

At the time the only other player who'd been granted exceptional status was Tavares. So it wasn't readily understood to be the joke that it is. But the fact that there's a thing called "exceptional status" and that unexceptional players get tagged with it is the very definition of hype. For what it's worth he was also the OHL rookie of the year, took home all the top honors in the OHL coaches polls for defensemen, and captained Team Canada to gold at the Hlinka tourney, all as an underager. So yeah, he was a pretty big deal in his draft year. And yeah, he really hasn't lived up to it. Dahlin will probably be a pretty good NHL defensemen, but he probably won't be the Connor McDavid of defensemen, which is how some folks have built him up around here. I think there's every chance that two or three of the defensemen drafted in this year's class turn out to be as good or better than Dahlin does.

He's not nearly as good as he was hyped. And he was HYPED. Only the second player ever granted exceptional status, and the first defenseman. You think he wasn't? Lol. Short memory. Like I said, recency bias. Doesn't matter, by the time everyone figures out that Dahlin is only as good as Roman Josi they'll be on to some other teenage "phenom".

I remember when people said the same things about Aaron Ekblad. Recency bias is a powerful thing.

Why? He's not the next Bobby Orr. The most common comparable I've see is Victor Hedman. I've seen Svech most often compared to Kovalchuk and Pettersson compared to Zetterberg most often. When you think of it in those terms its not so absurd. The only thing that Dahlin was heads and tails above the other two in is hype, not actual upside.

I don't know man, maybe I'm being self serving here but...I don't get what's not to like about Rasmussen NOW. At the time he was drafted, sure. There were other, potentially better, options still on the table. I was admittedly very unhappy about the pick. But nothing this past year has thrown up any red flags. MAYBE injuries or something, but in terms of play how could anyone conclude after the year he's had that he's at least a more legitimate #9 pick than we thought he was? If Rasmussen turns about to be the next David Backes is anybody around here going to complain that he's not "skilled" enough? I mean, I thought the pick was a stretch, but there is more than one way to be a good player in the NHL. I'd be thrilled if Ras was big, mean, and moderately capable offensively.

Ummm...why didn't you just post the links?

That's my point. Any attempt to define "number one defenseman" inevitably leaves out someone obvious. Erik Karlsson gets heavily sheltered minutes (60% offensive zone starts) and is never relied upon to defend again top competition. So any definition of "number one defenseman" that involves actually playing defense must necessarily exclude him, which is absurd. Hence my original point...the notion of "number one defenseman", which everyone goes on and on about, is not as clear cut as one might think and leaves plenty of room for the prospect in our system. Loads of people around here think Trouba is a number one defenseman because he's good defensively and plays big minutes, but he's not too good offensively. I don't think it's unrealistic that Cholowski could scoring 35 pts. a year (more than Trouba ever has), play big minutes, and be good defensively against top competition. Similarly, Kris Letang doesn't play defense but scores a lot, and he's also considered a top defenseman. I don't think that's unrealistic for Hronek.

I didn't understand myself to be arguing in favor of a "defense by committee". I specifically said I'd like as many defensemen as possible scoring between 35-50 pts. My argument was basically that there are only a handful of "number one defensemen" in the league as most people would define one. As such, saying that we don't have one in our prospect pool doesn't really bother me because most people don't have one in their prospect pool or on their team.

The problem I have with this notion of a true "number one" defenseman is that its typically defined as a sort of "do it all exceptionally well" defenseman. Which is fine in theory, but so many guys who are given that title don't match the description. Letang, Karlsson, Byfuglien, and Josi don't really play defense all that well. Trouba and Vlasic don't score much. Kronwall was derided around here for not being a "number one" despite doing all the stuff a top defenseman is supposed to do, same with John Carlson. Given the way that term is tossed around, I expect only Doughty, Subban, Keith, Sutter, Weber, Pietrangelo, and Hedman even qualify (and even some of them have s***ty shot metrics). Only two of them have a Cup. So if that's true, it's really not as important as people seem to think it is.

Unless it was in a package for something you need to put you over the hump I'd seriously avoid it. The key for me is the price. A guy that can give you a ton of offense in limited time, for limited money, is a gold mine as far as I'm concerned. Gives you all the goal scoring of a star player at bargain prices and still has value on the PK.

You think missing the playoffs for 3 years in a row will make us the Oilers? Lol. Alright man, you win.

The best team possible, or the best team possible next season? Because if you really want to see the best Red Wings team possible it probably behooves us to be bad again next year.

Ummm, I added Hicketts and Rasmussen and removed Zetterberg. I did "add" youth. It's just not the youth you're interested in apparently. Also, I'm not really interested in what "lots of people" think. Lots of people watch NASCAR, eat McDonalds, and listen to Taylor Swift. If anything I'm glad I don't think like they do.

Which is why I put as few "young guys" into the lineup as possible. But also, this argument doesn't really make a ton of sense. All of Lebda, Lilja, Smith, Marchenko, Kindl, Quincey, Ericsson, and Kronwall played with Lidstrom - the best defenseman of his generation - and only one of them turned out to be any good. The one who was always going to be good anyway. Playing on the same team as good players doesn't teach you all that much. At best it teaches you how to eat right, work out properly, and get enough sleep. I'm pretty sure Abby, Helm, Daly, Green, Ericsson, Neilsen, Vanek, Glendening, etc. etc. etc. can teach the young guys that much. Same reason why Gretzky was a terrible coach. Guys who are really super good at sports aren't necessarily the best teachers. Likewise, Mike "Never Played in the NHL" Babcock is a coaching darling despite being piss poor at hockey.