kipwinger

You say these things like you know. It's cute. Except that we see year after year that it's not the case. A year ago we need centers and to nobody's surprise the BPA each time we picked just happened to be a center? The year before that we needed a goalie and we were able to trade up and the BPA just happened to be a goalie? This after drafting a stud left defenseman instead of a stud RHD, and that's just because he was the BPA and not because we had two stud righties on our team already? And not just the top picks. Yzerman says he wants to build from the back end out and the "BPA" for three of his first four draft picks are defensemen? That's odd. In fact it's extremely unlikely statistically. Also, a ranking doesn't determine a player's talent level (as you say above). A players talent is not changed by a ranking. They don't become more or less talented depending on which team's scouts are evaluating them. Boards don't reflect who's the most talented player. They reflect who the team values the most at each draft position. And it's absurd to think the team doesn't weight things like position, handedness, and organizational needs when determining who they value the most for each draft position. Edit: Also, every single year we hear Yzerman or Draper or someone say "This is the player Hakan Andersson was banging the table for". Why would that be necessary if there was no variability in who was selected at any given pick? And if there is some variability then there's no BPA...or teams are ignoring it.

Did they? That's odd because I remember him playing that EXACT role last year when he was called up and now they wanna bring him back. I"m sure they'll use him in a totally different way this time though. Being on a two-way deal does not preclude him from making the team as a 13th forward and playing on the powerplay when he's in the lineup. Exactly. Like. He. Did. Last. Year.

I've never argued that scouts don't score players. I'm suggesting that how GMs weight each score is entirely subjective. Which is better, a player with the highest scoring shot or the highest scoring passing ability? What about size vs. speed? Ceiling vs. floor? Even strength vs. powerplay scoring? Character vs. compete? Scores only give GMs a picture of who the player is, not whether he should pick them or not.

You seem to know a lot for a guy who said "Chiasson isn't worth bringing back" on the very same day it was reported that the Wings want to bring him back. Please, drop some more wisdom. You've done a bang up job of educating me so far.

You could absolutely do that, and pick players based on an aggregated score of their physical traits. But if you think that would find the "best player" you're a dumb dumb. Why? Because one bad trait can pretty easily upset the apple cart. Scouts: Player X is really really really fast, he's got size, excellent hands, scores goals, can be used on the powerplay, and has versatility enough to play all forward positions. GM: Is he a p*ssy? Scouts: Kinda. GM: The Detroit Red Wings are proud to select Andreas Athanasiou (in the 5th round). Edit: Not to mention the fact that you'd end up having a bunch of guys with the same scores and you'd still have to choose between them. Also, the NHL already does this for teams at the scouting combine and GM after GM say the combine doesn't factor that much into their selection process.

Whoa, you’re blowing my mind!?! You mean to tell me that a 13th forward might be on a 2 way deal? That’s unheard of! You are a f*cking genius. I’m in awe.

Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks so. https://www.mlive.com/redwings/2023/06/red-wings-interested-in-pius-suter-alex-chiasson-among-their-own-ufas.html

You didn't really need an analogy to illustrate your point. You could have made the same point by simply just saying the bolded part. You shoehorned Trump into the conversation and then make an odd accusation that other people can't get over the guy. This despite the fact that you're the only person who mentioned him. Edit: I also think your whole "why don't people stop talking about two guys who are currently in the news" is an odd position to take as well. One just got hired by an NHL team and the other is running for President. Who should we talk about? Grover Cleveland and Al Arbour?

But you bringing it up is a case of "not letting it go". You could have just said "Commodore is pathetic and Babcock lives rent free in his head". Instead you used an analogy centered on Trump that illustrated the exact opposite point you were trying to make. "People can't get over Babcock in the same way they can't get over Trump" said the only guy on this board talking about Donald Trump.

Nobody is saying that. And that's not how the draft happens anyway. GMs aren't faced with the choice of 5 good defensemen and a mediocre center. They're choosing between a good center and a good defenseman. There is absolutely no objective way of determining whether Dalibor Dvorsky is a "better" center than David Reinbacher is a defenseman. But pretty much everyone universally agrees that they're roughly as good at their respective positions as the other is. THAT'S the decision GMs have to make. "Best" is an objective term that denotes quality. If you have a scale from 1-10, 1 being worst and 10 being best, then the "best" player available would be the player highest on the scale who can still be chosen. But that's not how teams work because there's no way of determining whether a good playmaker is better than an equally good shooter (for example). They chose the player they "like" the most of the remaining choices. And that's totally subjective and could be based on a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with hockey skill. Every single year we hear about a kid who would have gone higher if not for "character issues". Or a goalie with starter upside who gets drafted later than a middle six winger because "goalies are voodoo". GMs also routinely choose players with a higher floor but a lower ceiling, not because they're "better" but because they're safer. These aren't objective talent evaluations, they're preferences. Take the Seider draft as an example. Literally nobody (other than Yzerman) thought he was going to get picked 6th. So one of two things must be true. Either Yzerman is the only person in hockey who is capable of accurately determining who the "best" player is, or Yzerman took the player he liked the most, who also happened to play a position of need, and that player turned out to be the best player after the fact. Zadina is the same example in reverse. EVERYONE agreed he was the best player for Detroit to take based on their evaluations. But clearly he wasn't. So either everyone has no idea what the "best" player looks like, or there is absolutely no way of telling on draft day. In either case, it would be completely idiotic to base your draft strategy on it.

Commodore is sooooooo lame. Here's a fun story about him though. Back when I was on Twitter I actually got him to engage with me. He had taken up mountaineering after he retired from the NHL and was training to climb/hike Mount Kilimanjaro. I made a smart ass comment about how if he failed to summit the mountain he'd blame it on Mike Babcock and Commodore seemed to find that pretty funny. There was a little bit of banter between us and then he moved on. Of course it didn't stop him from complaining about Babcock every single change he got after that point, but I do think he's got some levity about the whole thing. To be fair, guys like you bring up Trump CONSTANTLY. For instance, you just did it to make a point in a hockey forum about two other people that have nothing to do with Trump. So maybe the libs won't let it go because neither will any of you?

Either way, the point is that the talent evaluation is completely subjective. There's no "best player available" because every team has a different idea of what "best" means. The reality is that teams take the player they like the most at that particular spot. But because many other teams would like different players at that same draft position, it becomes a truism. If SY came out and said "I drafted the guys I liked the most" a chorus of "no s***" would ring from the fanbase. Not to mention the fact that the minute he got one wrong everyone would question his judgement. So he says "BPA" and all the dummies look at their preferred draft rankings and see how far he "reached" before the decide whether they like the pick as much as he did.

Exactly, if there was a way to determine "best player available" trade backs would almost never happen. And goalies would go a lot higher than they do. I think GMs repeat the BPA mantra so that they don't have to spend a single second discussing their actual draft strategy to dimwit fans and media types. They just say BPA and dumb dumbs eat it up and they move on. Edit: Also, if "BPA" was an actual thing then teams wouldn't bother having meetings with players to gauge their character/temperment/attitude. "Well sure Alex Semin, we'll draft you. You score a billion goals and are tall, fast, and skilled. Why would we care if you're a lazy crybaby? You're the best."

This seems about as good a time as any to do my annual "There's no such thing as best player available" post. So... There's no such thing as best player available. After the obvious outliers (in this case Bedard and Fantilli) there are groups of players that are all roughly as good as one another. How do you determine who's better between a defenseman or center with roughly equal talent? You don't. You draft the thing you need. All NHL teams do this. How do you choose between a power forward that can score goals and a fast winger that's more of a playmaker? You don't. You draft what you need. Why did Simon Nemec get drafted before Shane Wright last year? Because New Jersey needed a right handed defenseman, NOT because there's some objective way to determine that Nemec was "better" than Wright. So... That means that mock drafts are likely to go completely to hell after the "obvious" choices at the top of the first round. It is absolutely impossible to determine whether Riley Heidt's lack of pace makes him a better or worse player than Lucas Dragicevic, who has no compete. All of these analyses are subjective and "best" means "best fit" and not "best player" because outside of the first few players there's no real consensus on what constitutes the best package of hockey talent.

Are you not getting enough attention little guy? Shhhhhhhh...it'll be okay.

I'd be pretty happy with this haul. I'd expect a few of these guys to go higher than you've got them mocked here but I'd be thrilled with the outcome. Edit: Also, good call on Edstrom. I really like him and think he's got "Yzerman Pick" all over him. I left him off my mock because I was looking at the higher end scorers, but there's a good chance his offense is way better than it seems given the leagues he's been playing in.

Yep, it’s setting the tone for the series. This is going to be high tempo.

Pretty cool moment for Eric Staal there.

Furious, which makes me sad, which makes me hard, which makes me ashamed.

What a creative and surprising thing for you to say!

I don’t care about the cynics, if people don’t wanna watch because it’s Vegas and Florida then that’s in them. I’m absolutely pumped about this series. This is going to be a barn burner.

Kinda. Washes for the teams that acquired them. Vrana hasn't played as much as Mantha, but he's consistently produced when he's been on the ice and has significantly outplayed Mantha. It's pretty obvious Vrana is a better player, but that doesn't really matter to Detroit at the moment.

If Washington buys him out I'd take him back for 4 million (or less) x 3 years. He wasn't a fit for Laviolette's uptempo system, clearly, but he's had success in a defense-first sytem (Blashill) which isn't too different than what we have now. As a 3rd/4th line wing who will occasionally punch a face I'd do it.

So we are back to winning the trade again?

Darn, I was desperately seeking your approval. Maybe next time.