krsmith17

I don't think there's any question that Hayton was an off the board pick at 5, but it's probably a little too early to say he's going to be a bust... I'm sure there will be quite a few players drafted outside of the top 5 that will be better than him though. Keep in mind, this is just one man's rankings though. I'm sure there are others that would consider Hayton a top 50 prospect. I doubt many would consider him better than (m)any that went in this year's top 10 though.

I absolutely think we would have kept both. Other moves would have been made before the organization would have even considered buying out one of Lidstrom or Konstantinov. If it did come down to one or the other, Lidstrom was then and would still be now, the undisputed keeper in my opinion. Nick was just entering his prime (27 years old) and was one of the top defensemen in the league. He was already a 0.68 points per game defenseman at that time. Konstantinov was great in his own right, but not close to the level of Lidstrom, not offensively anyway, at a 0.39 points per game.

The only player in the league that I think rivaled Stevens, being the biggest hitter and most intimidating opponent in the league. Vladdy wasn't as big as Stevens, but he hit just as hard. Guy was an absolute beast out there. He wouldn't have ever been as good as Lidstrom offensively, but he was rock solid in his own zone and could produce as well. I really do believe we would have one at least one more Stanley Cup between '99-07 if it weren't for that brutal accident...

F***ing HYPE!!!

Not a chance.

Why though? To add another $450K for a player that isn't much better? If they want Glendening (I doubt they do), they can have him for a late pick. We don't need Hyman.

I'm not sure if you're serious, but Hyman sucks. He's basically Abdelkader. This team needs more skill, not more grit...

Pretty blunt, but I don't entirely disagree. A lot of those old players and cap space he speaks of will be mostly gone in the next two seasons though. I also think we have a lot of very nice pieces coming (at forward), but we definitely need to work on the defense. Still no blue chip prospects in the system on the back end.

... and Veleno... Nah, not surprised Veleno isn't there, but he WILL be on this list in his draft +1 year, unlike Rasmussen... I agree though, I think Rasmussen should probably be there ahead of a couple guys on this list. I'm okay with him being underrated though, and like I said, hopefully he proves a lot of people wrong, including Scott f***ing Wheeler...

Exactly what I'd like to see if Zadina and Rasmussen make the team. Who's our 4th line then though? Bertuzzi - Helm - Abdelkader, with Glendening and Frk sitting? That would have the potential to actually be a very good forward group, except that A) I don't see Zadina on the top line (if he makes it) and definitely not with two other "kids", and B) I don't see Glendening sitting. A trade must happen... or an injury...

63 points as a 21 year old is more than just "potential" though. That's already proving to be worth $6M. His 2nd year was an aberration (sophomore slump), not the norm for Larkin. Sure, sign him to a short bridge deal, then in two years when he's 23, and has a 60+ point season and two 70+ point seasons under his belt, and is just entering his prime, he will command upwards of $8M, maybe more. Sometimes you have to bet on young players, and Larkin is exactly the type of player this organization should be betting on in my opinion. If it were up to me, I'd give him max term, at around $6-6.5M now. Worst case scenario, he plateaus as a 60 point, borderline 1st / 2nd line center, which would still be worth that contract. Best case, he hits his "potential" and becomes a point per game, borderline elite top line, two-way center, that plays in all situations. You now have a stud player signed to a great contract through his prime years. I think he is / will be.

I agree. My only point was that I don't really see Zucker as much of a comparable to Larkin. I can see $5.5, maybe, but not much lower than that. Again, what does the team Larkin is playing on have to do with his contract? That makes no sense... If anything, the fact that he's playing on a s***ty team should play in his favor as to why he's worth the money, not the other way around. Also, handing out a "prove it contract" to a player like Larkin, that will prove it, and "light it up" would be a huge mistake. We need to take advantage of players on cheap entry level contracts and lock up our core long term. Those are two things the most successful teams in the league continue to do. We haven't been doing either. You didn't answer my question. What do you think Larkin is worth? What sort of contract would you sign him to?

Umm yeah... That's what he's worth... What does missing the playoffs have to do with Larkin's contract? Just out of curiosity, what do you think "a (21 year old, top line center and future captain) who scored 63 points on a team that missed the playoffs" is worth?

I don't see there being much of a comparison there to be honest. Zucker is 5 years older, left wing, and only now starting to put up good numbers. If anything I see Zucker as a player for Larkin's camp to point to as to why he should get paid much more, not less... I'd love to see Larkin sign that sort of contract, but I just don't see it.

Trouba will be a Red Wings by the 2020 season...

Maybe, but I'm thinking more like 3-4 years for one of our young goalies to emerge...

What makes you so certain that there will be a contender in need of a goalie? That's not all that common... You know what is common? Teams (virtually every playoff team) looking for depth scoring at the deadline. Which is why players (centers / wingers / defensemen) are moved more often than goalies at the deadline, and usually have a higher price tag. I didn't say a 2nd was reaching. I just think that a 1st is out of the question, and I can see it being a 3rd, or even more likely, nothing... I'm not against Howard either. I love the guy and think he's a very underrated goaltender amongst Wings fan. I just don't see ANY goalie being in huge demand at the deadline, this year or any year. Unless of course, like mentioned there's a long term injury to a number one in that 3-4 week period leading up to the deadline. I wouldn't say that happening is all that likely. Possible? Sure, but not likely...

I hope so, but I wouldn't expect much more than a 3rd to be honest. He definitely wouldn't get us a 1st. Maybe a 2nd if we're lucky, depending which teams (if any) are looking for a goalie at next year's deadline... Yup, pretty much what I was thinking as well. Howard is "worth" more than a 3rd and a s*** prospect, but I wouldn't bet on him getting a whole lot more than that for only a few months, unless a true contender loses their starter long term. Even then, there could be better / cheaper options out there as well.

Bernier will take over the starter role in Detroit by mid season. Howard will be traded at the deadline for a similar return as Vanek two years ago (3rd round pick, and a s*** prospect). Bernier will be "the guy" going forward, until one of the kids emerge as "the next guy"...

No we don't. I really do believe that Rasmussen is a lock to make the team out of camp, unless he gets injured or has an awful camp / pre-season. And if every single player is healthy coming out of camp (very doubtful), Holland will be forced to make a trade. I think you can count on at least one player being injured prior to the start of the season though, not saying this is the right way to look at it, but it's why Holland isn't in any rush to make a trade... yet. Things will work themselves out, they always do. And the same goes for Zadina. He may not make the opening night roster (he still might), but you can be guaranteed he will get a look at some point this season (assuming he's producing in GR).

It wouldn't happen. If that trade would make you stop watching games, what would make you stop posting trolling here?

I don't get this one either. I'm sure there are Canadians that say "pro-sess", just like I'm sure there are American's that do as well. I say "prah-sess", and I'm pretty sure most Canadians pronounce it that way. That's like "toe-may-toe" vs "toe-ma-toe". I'm not sure that's really a Canadian vs American thing, as much as it's a smart person vs dumb person thing...

So the only exposer American's have to anything Canadian is satirical comedy shows / movies? When I say that I've never heard a Canadian say "aboot", I'm talking about real people, not actors / comedians... Newfoundlanders definitely do have an accent, but not all are the stereotypical incoherent "Newfie accent". I've met people from other parts of Canada and the US that never believed I'm from Newfoundland, because I don't have much of the thick Newfie accent, and for whatever reason they assumed we all talked the exact same. Ignorance I guess...

The point I think @toby91_ca was trying to make though, and I agree, that there isn't a "Canadian accent". Different provinces, and even on smaller scale, different cities and towns within each province, have very different accents. The same way there isn't one "American accent". Different states, as well as cities and towns within each state have very different accents. And yeah, I've never hear a Canadian say "aboot"... I'd love to know where that stereotype originated from. Is there actually a part of Canada that talks like that?

Ol s*** for brains is at it again... The sad thing is, you think you're hilarious, but everyone is laughing at you, not with you. You're a joke. You try to make it seem like I come up with all these unrealistic trade scenarios, but in reality that's you. Mantha and a 1st for Faulk is an actual trade you suggested. None of the "KRS trades" you keep talking about I've ever suggested. Not even close. I'd love to trade for Trouba, but understand without giving up any of Larkin, Mantha or Zadina, it's a pipe dream, and I'm fine with that. I don't want to trade for Faulk or Karlsson and have said as much several times.