kipwinger

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.

The thing is, as much as I want to see them tank (and I do), I'm not really setting them up for failure too badly. If all the young forwards take the next step (like they need to for us to be successful anyway) then we'll be a better team than last year. If they don't, oh well, we get a high draft pick. Either way, I pump Frk up with powerplay time and hope someone will give us a 3rd for him. I trade Nyquist at the deadline. Zetterberg is gone. Vanek is gone after the season is over. Kronwall and Jensen too. Plenty of spots for the kids the following season and they'll be chomping at the bit after a long year in the AHL.

In the off season news department: Jared McIsaac is currently playing alongside Evan Bouchard on Canada's top defensive pairing in the World Junior Summer Showcase. Berggren on Sweden's 3rd line.

Fun question I posed on hockey Twitter... If AA only ever turns out to be as good as Michael Grabner, meaning he's a 3rd line penalty killer who chips in 20-25 goals for between 3-4 million does that make him MORE or LESS valuable to the Wings going forward?

What I'd love to see barring any injuries (other than Zetterberg). Bert-Larkin-Mantha Nyquist-Neilsen-Ras Vanek-Helm-AA Frk-Glendening-Abby Ericsson-Daly Dekeyser-Green Kronwall-Jensen Hicketts

I'm almost certain that you and I would define "top pair" defenseman differently, and I'm even more convinced that we'd disagree on what makes someone "a number one" defenseman (I actually don't even think that's all too relevant anymore). I'm far more interested in how they are used, and more importantly, if they (meaning the defense as a whole) can score a bunch. In this case I think they can and will. I think Hronek, Saarijarvi, Cholo, and maybe Lindstrom will put up good point totals (35 to 50 pts) in the NHL, if only because two of the three will get powerplay time down the road. I think McIsaac has that potential as well but want to see what he does this year before making any judgements about his skill set. Either way he'll make a good "defensive defenseman" potentially. I feel basically the same way about Sulak. Plus we will almost certainly pull from outside the organization at some point as well. In short, I don't care if we have a "true number one guy" because I think that notion overblown. I'm far more concerned with modernizing our defense and I think we've got a lot of guys that can play modern defense effectively.

Looking forward to seeing Saarijarvi carve up the AHL this season now that he'll finally get some playing time with Russo gone and (likely) Hronek with the big team. I'm probably one of the few who thinks our defensive prospects are better than advertised.

We could pretty easily have had a couple more on this list. Rasmussen and Cholowski should both be in the discussion. Cholowski especially looked right at home in the WHL with Foote, Valiimaki, and Clague.

I don't think he's better than Mike Green and is only as good as Daly. its possible that either of Hronek or Cholowski may be as good at some point in the near future as well. But you're avoiding the questions I'm asking. Would you give him the 7 million per year he's asking for? Also, put together a realistic trade proposal for him?

I do disagree with that. Let me ask you this, since he's a "top pairing defenseman who can log huge minutes" would you lock him up long term at 7 million like he's asking for? Seems like a good deal for the player you're describing right?

Well, AA plus what? And I don't think a guy that's hurt all the time and has never topped 33 points can be classified a "top pair defenseman". He's the 3rd best right handed defenseman on his team.

Neither AA nor Mantha are as good as their skill level would indicate they could be. And they're not getting paid top dollar so I don't care. Both are still valuble players though .

I swear to God some of the player valuations around here are insane. I wish we were all NHL general managers. I'd fleece you fools daily. I'd start by trading Jacob Trouba to KRS for whatever haul he would gladly part with, and then laugh all the way to the bank as Trouba's already modest offense dried up completely in Detroit. I'd trade Faulk to Jonas for Mantha and Detroit's 1st (likely to be a lottery pick no less). I'm not sure what I'd trade for Nyquist and AA, but given that half of LGW are willing to part with them for peanuts I suspect I'd win that one too.

Depends. Michael Grabber is a third liner who's s***ty defensively but gives you 20-30 goals a year for like 3-4 million per year. Almost all of which come off the breakaway or by blowing the zone. If AA only ever turned out to be that he'd be worth his current contract and all future contracts in the same ballparkk and every Wings fan should be thrilled by the prospect.