kipwinger

I agree for the most part. My understanding is that a whole series of scouts evaluate each player, score them, and then pool their scores to determine the final draft ranking. This likely mitigates the affect that any one scout has on the final determination. But like I said, this wouldn't be affective if too many of your scouts valued the same types of traits, or tended to undervalue or not recognize, others. I do think that quite a lot of teams promote "yes men" however. Not that people think to themselves "I'm going to hire a guy just because he thinks like I do". I imagine they know these people for years, have lots of conversations about hockey in which they seem to have "similar ideas" (i.e. say the kinds of things each other like to hear) and so naturally think the person "fits right in" to the organizational culture. Again, look at Lowe and McTavish. Great players, but idiot managers who just keep turning to each other for insights that neither of them had to begin with. All because they were buddies and presumably liked how the other thought about hockey. Sometimes its important for organizations to hire people who don't "fit in". I don't have a problem with the Wings promoting guys like Malts or Draper. But if I needed to hire any new scouts I'd be damn sure whoever I got hadn't spent years as a penalty killing, depth forward, with limited offensive ability. In any organization, if you've picked people well to begin with, you don't need to find more people to reinforce what you're (presumably) doing well. You should look for people to complement, innovate, and add to what you're already doing.

I mean, over time the results of any particular scout speak for themselves, and the cream certainly rises to the top. But it doesn't always start that way. Maltby and Draper and Fischer weren't given jobs because they'd demonstrated keen hockey insights regarding drafting and player development. They had no results, or even a resume, to qualify them for their job in the same way Hakan Andersson does. They were given jobs because they were good Red Wings and the organization rewarded them. Same reason Osgood is a commentator despite his relative unsuitability for the job lol. Every team does it to some extent. The Oilers made Kevin Lowe and Craig McTavish executives despite their unsuitability for the job. The Avs did the same with Sakic and Roy. I don't know whether Malts and Draper are any good at their jobs or not. And they're certainly biased (which isn't bad and is true of everyone). I just think it's good for all organizations to be aware of the fact that any evaluator comes with a set of preconceived ideas about players that A) might not be useful for particular types of players, and B) have the potential to become insular if not counter balanced by other evaluators with a different set of preconceived ideas which are different yet complimentary.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I'm not blaming them for anything. I was saying that guys like Draper and Maltby think hockey in a particular way, which is likely influenced by what made them successful. That's totally fine. But that they might be less successful at recognizing the raw characteristics or traits that would make a different type of player successful. It's really not that keen of an insight. No different that suggesting that a former defenseman would be better at evaluating defensive prospects than a former forward. Not that it can't be done by a forward, but rather that a defenseman might have different, and in this case more useful, insights based on their own understanding of the necessary skillset.

He's 18 and underdeveloped physically so that's to be expected. His physique will develop as he matures. But it doesn't hurt that he's got a really big frame. I haven't watched him personally like you have. But I tend to value skating, puckwork, on ice vision, and hockey smarts more in a young kid than I do strength. He'll get there, especially (as I've said) because of his frame.

Given that we're most likely to draft 6th or 7th I'd like to see us target Glass or Mittelstadt. Mittelstadt is supposedly the more creative player, which is something I value in a top end center. Glass is young for the draft (17) and he's already putting up impressive numbers. I'd expect him to explode a year from now. Both have good NHL frames at over 6 feet and 200 lbs.

Agreed. But hey, Russo picked us a year ago so why not you know?

Well I certainly didn't suggest he'd be a "standout" player. In fact, quite the opposite. But I do think that guys who have the choice tend to pick teams for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with whether the team is good or not. I mean, why would Mike Green have signed here if that was the case. He would have got a similar deal elsewhere, and on a team that wasn't trending down for the last several seasons. Parise and Sutter picked a s***ty team that was spinning it's wheels. Who knows, maybe the Red Wings were the kid's favorite team growing up? Not much of a stretch considering a few short years ago we were EVERYBODY's favorite team. We're bad, but I don't think that means as much for guys trying to establish themselves as guys who are established and have a skill they're trying to shop to a team that can win.

I read an article recently about how Teemu Selanne was starting up a hockey school for scorers and I found it really interesting. The gist is that hockey types tend to view defense and effort and what not as something that can be learned, and that scoring is a "natural" ability. I mean, how many times have you heard NHL scouts, coaches, etc. say of a guy's offensive abilities, "he's got things we can't teach"? Teemu disagrees. He argues that you can teach skills and habits that increase the probability of scoring just like you can teach any other facet of the game. Scoring, in essence, is the product of same types of learning that every other aspect of the game is. And I tend to believe him considering how wildly good he was at it for so long. So if your entire organization is filled with guys who have never been scorers, and don't know how to do it, then how are they going to know what raw skills to look for in a prospect? And how are they going to know how to develop those skills? Chances are all that potential will be overlooked in favor of what you DO know how to evaluate. Here's the link to the article for those who are interested: http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/super-scorer-teemu-selanne-doing-his-part-to-keep-finland-the-no-1-team-in-the-world

I don't know that we could "do better". I mean, I don't know the first thing about the individual, daily, commitments it takes to be an NHLer. And for guys like Maltby and Draper, who had good long careers, that stuff is self evident. I just think that it's something you have to be aware of, because what made YOU successful might not be what will make someone else successful. And there's a real danger of passing on someone with great potential because they don't do it like you do.

I agree. And I think as NHL teams have become run more like businesses, and less like self identifying clubs, they have tended to embrace organizational theories that value things like diversity in points of view and modes of operating. Less of "this is the way we've always done it". But it still remains in some very identifiable ways. I used to always say that if you had a "really big guy" you should immediately shop him to San Jose because they'll give you a much better smaller player in return just because your guy is huge (see: Brenden Dillon for Jason Demers trade with Dallas).

Scouts tend to judge players based on a set of characteristics that the scouts themselves value. Which is totally fine. Judging something based off of your own experience as an NHL player makes sense in some cases, but not always. If you're Kirk Maltby or Kris Draper you certainly know something about training, preparation, attention to detail, etc. But you probably don't know jack about offensive ability. So their subjective evaluations can become myopic sometimes. I think there's a danger of promoting TOO MUCH from within to fill your scouting ranks because your organization can trend toward inside the box thinking. It's easy to imagine an organization full of scouts who value grit, competitiveness, etc. to undervalue an exceptionally skilled play because of perceived shortfalls in "effort" or something. And that could be a huge mistake a few years down the road.

Why? He was undrafted so it's not like teams are beating down his door. Plus he'd have a better chance of making a rebuilding team than one that's actually good.

Maybe, but he's a little small for a power forward. I wouldn't count on it. I think "best case" is someone like Cleary. Which again, wouldn't be a disappointment or anything, but I wouldn't expect much. But if it frees up guys like Bertuzzi to be packaged to get rid of bad contracts then I'll be happy.

Lucky for you. In general micros are infinitely better than mass produced beer. Some of the experimental breweries get carried away from time to time, but that's the point of being an experimental brewery I suppose. Either way, I'd still rather drink a Bell's Two Hearted over a Molson, Labatt, Bud, etc. any day of the week.

Well when you said last "several" years I assumed you weren't reaching back to 2009 lol. Seems like a stretch. Also, there are almost ZERO generational talents outside the top 3-5 in any draft. We haven't picked anywhere close to that so you kinda need to temper your expectations. Also also, even Datsyuk and Zetterberg weren't DATSYUK and ZETTERBERG when they were drafted. It's not like we drafted them knowing that they were diamonds in the rough. They just turned out that way. Lucky for us, but not like it was some keen insight. If anybody had any inclination that they would turn out to be that good they obviously would have been drafted WAY higher. They were picked for the same reasons Tatar and Nyquist and Filppula and Hudler were picked. They just massively exceeded expectations. Point is, given where we've drafted and how other similarly ranked picks have turned out I'd say we've done much better than average. We have very few draft busts, which seems to make people think it's the norm. It isn't. For many teams in the league, a 3rd-5th round pick will never see the light of day. We have routinely turned those picks into serviceable NHL players, and occasionally turned them into stars.

When I first moved to DC I was sitting in a hockey bar watching a Wings game drinking Labatts. I had about 6 of them. When I cashed out the total was 42 dollars. I assumed there must have been a big mistake given what I was drinking and asked the bartender what was up. "You're drinking 'imports'" she says. I was floored. I can drink quality micros for 8 bucks, or Labatts for 7. Needless to say I have not tasted a Labatts in about 3 years.

Our top picks the last several years have been Mantha, Larkin, Svech, and Cholowski. Hardly "underwhelming". Other than the obvious "top of the draft" guys like Matthews, nobody picked 15-20 has turned out any better than the guys we selected.

I actually think we DO need a playmaking center. I'd be thrilled with him if Holland drafted him. Aside from the fact that he doesn't have Patrick's injury history (which is very troubling given the nature of his injuries), he's by all accounts a very good set up guy. We need that. If the organization insists on using AA as a winger going forward, our future top six wingers will be some combination of AA, Mantha, Svech, and one of Tatar or Nyquist. Those guys need someone who can get them the puck and make plays. It's SUPER important to have good playmakers as top six centers. Hischier is a bit small now, but he'll grow. He's only 18 and is the exact same size Datsyuk and Zetterberg were when drafted. He'll fill out. Also, it's much less important for a center to shoot right or left than a defenseman or winger because they don't play on the wall. So I wouldn't worry about that.

He profiles as a classic 3rd/4th line winger. Reminds me a little bit of a Zach Hyman type. Useful, but probably not stellar. I wouldn't mind signing him, doesn't hurt anything. And if he turns out equal to, or better than, some of our mid-level prospects it will free more guys up to be packaged in trades. I'm for it, but I don't really expect too much.

During our dynasty did anyone give a damn how bad Chicago and Toronto were? Nada. We had bigger fish to fry. When you're winning you don't pay any attention to the losers. And when you're losing, if LGW is any indication, you pay way TOO MUCH attention to how you used to win a lot 20 years ago. GLOOOORYYYYY DAAAAAAYYYYSSSSS!

Lol. Our "dynasty" is as meaningless as the Candiens or Islanders. And I'm sure Chicago cares about ours as much as we cared about those other two.

To me this isn't really hard. And I get super annoyed by the insinuation (from the organization) that a rebuild will take years and years and years. Maybe it used to, but players are increasingly ready to play in the NHL at a younger age so there's less need for "seasoning". Especially if you're drafting high (which we will be for a couple years). The organization needs to identify a core of young guys to build around, identify a "few" vets to help mentor them, and start moving good players not in either category to get good picks. If a guy is reasonably good now, but likely will be less good 3 years from now, then move him for futures. The operative goal should be to put yourself in a position to be competitive in 3 years. Anybody who doesn't figure into those plans should be moved for future's in this year's and next year's draft. Then sign available veteran UFA's ON SHORT TERM DEALS to compliment the young guys and keep the team from being the new Oilers while your young guys develop. Here's what I'd do over the next two years (remember, being bad is actually good for about two years). 1. Get a new coach. One who understands modern, offensive, hockey 2. Future core guys you keep: Mantha, Larkin, AA, Svech, Mrazek, Jensen. 3. Vets to keep: Z, Helm, Tatar, Neilsen 4. Vets to move: DK, Green, Abby (if possible), Nyquist, Sheahan, Glendening, Note: package mid-level prospects to entice other teams to take questionable contracts. Then roll with this, win, lose, or draw, for the next few years and draft as high as possible if you aren't good for a year or two. Z-Neilsen-Mantha Svech-AA-Tatar Frk-Larkin-UFA veteran winger (thinking here about a Justin Williams type) UFA PK/Grinder-Helm-Bertuzz UFA Defenseman (not a true #1, just serviceable)-Jensen Ouellet-Sproul Kronwall/Ericsson-Russo Kronwall/Ericsson

To play the devil's advocate here, I don't think that people are necessarily upset that Blashill is trying to "change" guys as a concept, but rather about how he's applying it. It would be like if Holland made a bad trade and someone defended him by saying "well ALL GMs make trades". Of course they do, trading wasn't the problem. Bad trading was. Perhaps what irritates people about Blashill is that he'll bench guys for not being defensive enough, but his whole team isn't offensive enough and nobody gets benched for that. He'll bench guys for being careless with the puck, but only SOME guys, because veterans apparently are immune from turnovers. He'll bench guys for not being "assertive enough" (Sproul) but guys like Marchenko and Ouellet get lots of time despite being unnoticeable. I think Blashill, like Babcock before him, came up with lots of post hoc justifications to rationalize the preferences they already had. In Blashill's case I think it's pretty clear that his preference is for defense-first hockey players, and that he doesn't mind if you're one dimensional as long as that dimension is defense. Which is well and good, but then it's pretty hard to take him seriously when he's benching guys ostensibly to "round out their game" or whatever. He pretty clearly doesn't care about a well rounded game or Miller, Glendening, Sheahan, Ouellet, Ericsson, Kronwall (at this point in his career), etc. wouldn't all be playing hockey on the same team at the same time.

Don't forget, they've got the best coach too. More wins than Arbour and just as many Cups as Bowman had with the Wings "dynasty" team.

Yiiiikes. Tomas Jurco burying the Blashill system. "The biggest difference is that here we're told to make plays instead of just making safe plays and chipping it in and playing safely," Jurco said. "Here you actually should create something if you want to stick in this lineup because there's so many creative players." "I try to play it safe and it doesn't work here. You obviously can't be risking it at certain times of the game or situation, but most of the time you should try to create something, hold onto pucks and don't just chip it in and go for it."