kipwinger

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."

Craig Coxe to be exact.

I give Holland a "B" for the deadline. In my opinion he should have been trying to do three things. In no particular order those things were: 1) Move UFAs 2) Get rid of bad contracts 3) Acquire high draft picks for the rebuild He did one of those things. As usual I thought he was fairly conservative, but that's par for the course. Hopefully he can use these extra third rounders to "sweeten the deal" in the offseason and get people to trade for some of our worse contracts. He's got a little currency now, I'm interested to see what he can do with it. And do something with it he must, because he (and everybody else) knows you can't win with a core of mediocre, overpriced, role players, and a bunch of 3rd round picks.

Well as overrated as I think Babcock is, and he is pretty overrated, I didn't vote for Babs. I voted for hockey fights. Obviously. Only in hockey would fans, organizations, scouts, and the media fetishize a PENALTY. Could you imagine if football players developed a "code" and backslapped each other for pass interference, spearing, or horsecollaring because it "kept guys honest"? It's completely idiotic. I did like your list though, except Eichel really isn't too overrated. Nobody talks about him anymore and he's still pretty good. I would add "grit", "veteran presence", and "crease-clearing defensemen" to the list though.

Like I said, Panik was waived by one of the league's worst teams and he IS playing up there. Chicago has a good core and a great coach, if Jurco can't make it there he can't make it anywhere. But I don't think, in his case, that past performance means much. It's not like the Red Wings have been great at asset management the last few years. We'll see how he performs, but I won't be a bit surprised if he's much better in Chicago than he was here. We currently seem to have no idea how to maximize guys' abilities in Detroit anymore.

It wasn't too long ago that Panik was a waiver pick up. Now he's on the top line of one of the league's premier teams. I wouldn't guarantee that Jurco is restricted to only 4th line duties.

I'd consider it for Fowler or Hamilton, not Trouba. He's not especially good offensively for a "top pair" guy and he already thinks he's a superstar so you know you're going to have to pay him more than he's worth later. He reminds me of another "top pair" guy named Jay Bouwmeester, who was mediocre offensively, got paid like a elite defenseman, and then never improved. Except that Trouba has never topped 30 points in any NHL season. I'd pass and keep my pick. Try to move Nyquist and/or Dekeyser for defensive help.

Nope, March 1st.

My trade deadline strategy is pretty simple. 1. Trade Dekeyser (for no less than a 1st or part of a package). 2. Trade Nyquist (for no less thana 1st or part of a package). 2. Trade Vanek if you get a 1st, otherwise don't and let him continue to mentor Mantha. 3. Trade Ott, Miller, Ericsson, if anybody wants them. If not, waive the forwards. 4. Play remainder of the season with the expressed intent of giving kids developmental opportunities AT THE POSITIONS WE NEED THEM TO PLAY IN. 5. Reassess in the offseason. Z-Neilsen-Mantha Tatar-AA-Vanek Jurco/Frk-Larkin-Abby Glen-Helm-Callahan Jurco/Frk Smith-Green Ouellet-Jensen Kronwall/Ericsson-Sproul

If we aren't going to take a center in the draft (which we should), then keep your pick and look at Tomothy Liljegren. He's an offensive dynamo, and Trouba is overrated.

I guess Koivu and Granlund are theirs, but otherwise it seems like they've largely bought their team. Which flies in the face of the "must build from within" narrative.

The Wild are an interesting team. They signed Parise, Suter, Pominville, Stewart, and Spurgeon. They traded for Staal, Coyle, Dubnyk, and Neiderreiter. So they have any homegrown talent?

He's only -1, so I'm guessing you're exaggerating.

Didn't see the AA goal, what it a beauty?