kipwinger

I've wanted Mittelstadt for a while now. He's the best puckhandler in the top 10 outside of Hischier, he's got good wheels and good size. His stats probably suffer from not playing in the CHL, which is a much more offensive brand of hockey, and as a result his draft ranking suffers as well. I want someone who can distribute the puck just as well as he scores, which Mittelstadt does. He's highly creative, and is a really good playmaker. He can also create scoring chances out of nothing because of his puck skills. Wingers are a position of strength for us. Going forward we've likely got AA, Mantha, Svech, and one of Nyquist/Tatar as our wingers in the top six. We need centers who can control the puck and find them in the offensive zone. Mittelstadt fits the bill.

I'm pumped about this. Seems like the organization may be trying to get ahead of the curve on the rebuild. His numbers weren't great in college, but remember a few things. 1) Freshmen don't get a ton of playing time in NCAA hockey, and rarely put up big numbers when they do. 2) the NCAA itself isn't a high scoring league. I'm happy that the kid will have the advantage of professional quality training facilities, nutritionists, etc. That should only help him develop physically. And playing against better quality opposition might mean he'll struggle at first, but hopefully it means he'll be ready to make the jump at an earlier age. I've said before I'd like to see us competitive again in 3 years. If Cholo takes 3 years to develop and can come up to the big club and be a quality defender at age 22-23 I'll be thrilled. I like this.

It blows my mind that people are still blaming the league on this. It's like the knee jerk distaste for Bettman clouds any other consideration when something bad happens in hockey. The owner, and Bettman, WANTED their players to go to the Olympics and lobbied to do so when pro players entered the games in the 90's. They seem perfectly willing to agree to player participation when it doesn't cost them anything, and would be absolutely ready to agree if they actually made a little money off the deal. But clearly the IOC isn't content with that arrangement. They don't want to pay expenses and they don't want to share profit. Few owners are going to agree if it actually COSTS them money. That's silly. Blame the IOC. For once, this isn't Bettman's fault.

Per the CBA, IF players and owners agreed to attend the event, AND the IOC was actually willing to let the NHL make money off of the enterprise, my understanding is that the NHLPA and the NHL would split the revenue 50-50. So you can't even say the owners just want everything for themselves here. The only difference is that the players are willing to play for free while the owners aren't willing to part with their players' services for nothing. Totally reasonable to me.

I disagree. I completely understand owners wanting to protect their investment, but they don't OWN the players. Players are contractors who supply their labor (i.e. hockey playing) to franchise owners. I suspect that there's nothing in their contracts prohibiting them from playing elsewhere provided their owners agree to a leave of absence (which, in cases like Ovechkin, they're willing to do). I actually think this is precisely the time for players do conduct a work action, if nothing else, to show the owners that they (the players) are willing to hurt the owners too (to prove a point for the next CBA negotiations). Having said that, I don't even blame the owners here. I blame the IOC. They make an insane amount of money off NHL talent in the games, and the owners (who reasonably want a kickback), are being blackballed by the Olympic committee. They won't allow the NHL preferential treatment in terms of advertising, branding, etc. And now they're not even willing to pay the costs associated with getting the NHLers into the tourny. At the end of the day it's their loss. Going to be awfully hard to sell a bunch of Team Canada "Crosby" sweaters if he isn't there. The IOC is 100% more corrupt than the owners because unlike the NHL, the Olympics are ostensibly not a profit making enterprise. Either way, I'll still be all about the tourny. There are a TON of high end, non-professional players, who will fill the ranks and I'll be pumped to see it. It's essentially the World Juniors on steroids because you'll have everyone from juniors through the AHL to fill the teams with.

I didn't think we were discussing the feasibility of trading Nyquist or Dekeyser. But rather that you didn't think they'd fetch a 1st rounder, yet that they're both much better than a 1st rounder would likely be. I agree it doesn't happen often. Mostly because teams don't trade guys like Nyquist and Dekeyser very often when they're under contract. When they do, they're worth 1st rounders, though I'll concede that the more common return is appropriately valued prospects (I'd be fine with that too). I agree that we need more than one good defenseman. I think we probably even agree that Dekeyser is a pretty good defenseman. I just don't think we agree on WHEN it would be useful to have them, whether DK will still be this good then, what we should do in the mean time. I also don't think that Dekeyser is so good that it's unreasonable to think that between drafting, UFA, and what we have now that we couldn't (in a couple years) have a better defense without Dekeyser than we do with him.

Why do you want another winger? It's already a position of strength for us.

I'm confused by your response. If a 1st rounder isn't likely to turn out as good as DK and Nyquist are now why wouldn't a team looking to win now be willing to trade the 1st? And also, a first would have more value to us anyway (regardless of the risk) because we are (ideally) looking to be competitive in 3-4 years. So it matters a great deal less how good DK and Nyquist are now, but rather how good they will be then. Assuming we kept Tatar, we don't really need Nyquist. Seems pretty clear that some combination of AA, Mantha, Svechnikov, and Tatar are going to be the top six wingers going forward. Nyquist is a pretty expensive 3rd liner. Why not get the pick and hope to turn it into the next Werenski? Same with Dekeyser. He's not a top pairing defenseman NOW. He definitely won't be in a few years. So what's the point of keeping him when we could move him and trust that our scouting and development will find/develop someone (at least) as good as DK is now in a few years when we need it?

I agree that whoever we draft this year will most likely be in the lineup. I just left them out of the lineup I proposed because I didn't want to speculate in who we'd take. And it is because of this that I'd move DK and Nyquist or Tatar (preferably Nyquist). They each probably get us a 1st this year. With 3 firsts we have the ability to 1) move up (if we're drafting 4-7th) and get an impact player in the draft, or 2) depending on our lottery position draft an impact player without moving up and get two later 1st rounders to further stock the cupboard, or 3) get a high lottery pick, then trade 2 later round picks for one pick in the 7-10th spot. All of which seem like better options to me than hanging on to them and hoping they don't continue to regress between now and when we're likely to be competitive again.

We don't need to "immediately" replace him. We won't be good for at least another three years. We need to replace him/improve upon him by then. Which wouldn't be that hard. I feel the same way about Nyquist and Tatar. I'd move DK and one of them. They'd all get you a first rounder. Three first round picks would be HUGE in a couple years. Then sign FA's to fill out your roster. Besides, why keep him? By the next time we're any good he'll be 30 years old, his contract will still suck, and he'll be even less worth it. Edit: Also, aren't you the guy who CONSTANTLY complains about overpriced guys who are only suituationally good?

Because he's a decent player, would get us a high draft pick, and costs too much. He's exactly the kind of guy I'd move. Good enough to get a decent return, but not so good that we can't live without him.

I don't know either. And I don't even think we draft badly. As I said elsewhere, I think we've drafted really well lately to be honest. I really like Tyler Wright as the director of scouting. As far as I know, Yzerman didn't really have much of a "scouting" roll. I think that was primarily the purview of Nill, MacDonnell, and Fischer in North America, and Andersson and Vakurov in Europe while Yzerman was around. But your point is valid. I think you're right though that we've had a lot of turnover in our scouting ranks the last few years. Thankfully there hasn't been much fall off to speak of. And as I said elsewhere, I think there's a misperception that getting late round draft steals was easier than it actually is because we had a lot of success with that for a while with guys like Dats, Z, Franzen, Filppula, etc. But the truth is, guys like that almost never turn out to be that good. We weren't better at drafting back then, we just got really, really, really lucky.

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.