kipwinger

This offseason is mostly going to be addition via subtraction since we're horrible and there's no way we're signing any good free agents unless we MASSIVELY overspend, which isn't a good idea. I'd look to sign a 35 year old goalie to a 1-2 year deal, I've mentioned Greiss, Halak, and Crawford in the past. Maybe I'd look to sign a veteran defenseman, thought I expect Cholowski and Seider will both be up next year to start the season. If that's the case you have: Seider, Cholo, Hronek, Nemeth, DK, Biega, and one of Bowey or Lindstrom. So maybe there no room for a veteran add. I also don't think that we add a center because I suspect Ras will be with the big club next year as a 3C and Filppula will be the 2C in a year where we're expected to be bad again anyway. I don't see us signing Gagner for that reason. I'd also only expect one of Erne/Perlini/Timashov signed and Svech and Smith to make the big club. I fully expect Franz Nielsen to retire as well. Just a hunch. Fabbri-Larkin-Mantha Bert-Flip-Zadina Helm-Rasmussen-Svech Erne/Timashov/Perlini-Glendening-Smith Ehn Abby DK-Hronek Nemeth-Seider Cholo-Lindstrom/Bowey Biega

Perhaps you should read more. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-draft-prospects-pro-comparisons-jack-hughes-connor-mcdavid/c-306418902

You guys throw this "generational" word around like nothing. To me there are only maybe three "generational" players currently in the NHL. Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid. Crosby dropped 102 points in his first NHL season. McDavid had a serious injury, but still put up over a point per game as a rookie. Ovechkin dropped 106 points as a rookie. THAT'S what generational players do. Anybody expecting anything like that out of Lafreniere, a guy who isn't even leading the CHL in scoring, is probably overestimating his talent. He's not "generational". Not even close. He'll be a very good NHL winger, not unlike a Hall, Tarasenko, or Pastrnak. As I've said, I see Rossi as a Girioux or Backstrom type center. That's just a much more valuable all around player. Would you consider Miro Heiskanen or Quinn Hughes "generational" then? They both had equally impressive (or more impressive) 19 year old seasons as Dahlin has.

All the "experts" said Dahlin was generational and Hughes was borderline "generational". Suddently the experts' opinions aren't worth anything? Also, for what it's worth Cory Pronman, whom you seems to suddenly love, said that Hughes was a better prospect than Lafreniere. FYI.

You disagree with the "experts" ALL THE TIME. For instance, they all said Joe Veleno has limited offensive upside at the NHL level. You constantly say otherwise. They all said Michael Rasmussen was a top ten pick, something you FREAKED OUT about on draft day. Seems like their takes are only unassailable when it helps your argument. The "experts" said the same things about Dahlin and Hughes. They were wrong and will be again. McDavid and Matthews are centers. Their impact on the game is MUCH greater than a wingers' impact. Literally the only "generational" winger of the last 20+ years is Ovechkin. And Lafreniere ain't no Ovechkin. Also, you seem obsessed with media evaluators and even they say Lafreniere is more like a Taylor Hall type than a McDavid/Matthews. Sorry to break it to you, but Taylor Hall is NOT "elite of the elite".

Hmmmm...what big event in the late 80s could have led to a pretty significant drop in his point production? Let me think for a sec.

I'm pointing out instances in which consensus rankings were obviously wrong. If all those guys know so much why were they ALL so wrong on so many top five picks, year after year? My point has never been that I get everything right. My point is that "everybody" gets top picks wrong frequently enough to suggest that their consensus 1st overall choice may not actually be the best player in the draft this year.

Did I miss something? Is he some stud two-way player and everyone just decided not to talk about that aspect of his game?

Not that valuable. I can go through almost every recent draft and find something glaringly wrong about the consensus top 3-5 pick. It's odd that all those guys who "know more" get the same things wrong about the same players in the same ways, year after year. It's almost like their opinions are largely influenced by each other. Short list of things almost "everyone" agreed on before the draft but were totally wrong about: 1. 2012: Yakupov, Murrayl, Galchenyuk the best three players in the draft. Wrong. 2. 2013: Jonathan Drouin top line level talent. Wrong. 3. 2014: Leon Draisaitl wasn't elite. Wrong 4. 2015: Dylan Strome top line level talent. Wrong 5. 2016: Jesse Puljujarvi top line level talent. Wrong 6. 2017: Nolan Patrick and Nico Hischier > Miro Heiskanen and Cale Makar. Wrong. 7. 2018: Rasmus Dahlin is generational. Quinn Hughes isn't in same tier. Wrong. 8. 2019: Jack Hughes was "near generational". Wrong. If I would have said Cale Makar was better than Hirschier or Patrick in 2017 you'd respond the same way you are now. You'd laugh me out of the building and point to all the consensus people who "know better". And you'd all be wrong, wrong, wrong. Does Rossi not play the harder position? Is he not scoring as much? Is he not better defensively? Does he not play on the PK? Is he not a top faceoff guy? Nothing I said is inaccurate. I'm giving you actual reasons for my opinion and you've got nothing. Refute anything I said above with actual evidence. Dare you.

He is better. Because there's more to hockey than scoring. As I've said many times, Rossi scores as much as Lafreniere (minus his very first year on NA ice), he is a much better defender (every single person says so!), plays a harder position with more responsibility, takes (and wins) faceoffs, and is on the PK. Lafreniere scores. That's about it. I think Rossi will probably be like a Claude Girioux and Lafreniere will be like a Tarasenko. And I'd ALWAYS take Giroux over Tarasenko.

Exactly. How often does "every single person" in hockey have to be wrong about prospects before we can all agree that it's worthwhile to question their evaluations?

I do too, on a long enough developmental curve. Centers just impact the game in so many more ways than wingers do. And even within those groups, some guys just have a greater impact based on how they play the game. Remember when we all patted ourselves on the back because someone somewhere said "Datsyuk is better than Crosby" back in 2008? Why do you think that was said? Datsyuk never scored more. But he did every single other thing at a higher level. And yet ever single person here bases their opinions on prospects, to some extent, on the rankings of guys like Pronman or Button or McKenzie or whomever. Nobody here has probably watched more than a game or two of any of the top guys, let alone all of them. We only think Byfield > Perfetti because guys like Pronman say so.

Yep. Still the best. If scoring flashy goals meant anything, Andreas Athanasiou would be an all-star. You can literally find the exact same types of tweets a year ago about how "cheat code" Jack Hughes was too. Not working out so great for him now though.

You mean this guy? Yeah, he's totally lame, and definitely doesn't bang way hotter chicks than you. Nice try, simp.

Ummm...I think you're forgetting someone? You can't spell Czadina without a "C".

yeah but how many times has be won the Masterson trophy?

Guarantee you weigh about the same, beta boy.

It's true. The further back you go the littler everyone gets. Lot of people don't know this, but the Revolutionary War was fought by literal munchkins. George Washington, for instance, was only about a foot and a half tall. But considering everyone else averaged about 11 inches in height you can see why he always looks so big in those paintings.

I mean, yeah, sure. But make Ovi slower, and weaker, and stupider, and give him a stick he's never used before, and the original prototype ice skates, and play according to a totally different set of rules, and then tell me how good he is!

Haven't seen this level of petty egoism since...Mike Babcock? It's only been a few months? Damn, hockey's no better than basketball after all.

You probably don't believe in a lot of things that are true. Or vice versa. Your belief system doesn't really matter all that much though. You've said it yourself, coaches ruin players all the time by not playing them high enough in the lineup. AA is no different. Just like Smith and Jurco before him.

This is a pretty funny discussion. I recall one of the participants here CONSTANTLY b*tching about how Mike Babcock ruined Brendan Smith because Babs wouldn't play Smith with Kronwall. Seems like the shoe is on the other foot now.

Are they the same people who discount statistical differences, adjusted scoring rates, and obvious systematic differences like butterfly-style goaltending? Because I think you're just talking about yourself at this point.

Who are these people? We've been talking about this for pages and the only person mentioning trophies is you.

So youre saying AA single handedly won games for the Wings down the stretch? Sounds likee a stud to me.