krsmith17

I hope not... He should, just like the next 10 general managers drafting after Yzerman should. The "other needs" should be first priority. Try to get Blomqvist in the 3rd round. Adding him, along with Larsson, Brattstrom, Eliasson, Petruzzelli and Gylander, I'm sure one would turn out to be an NHL quality starter. This would be worst case scenario for me. If we had two top 10 picks, and didn't take a single one of the elite forward prospects, it would be a massive fail in my opinion. No. This is an old and outdated hockeyism. Build up an elite core of forwards and defensemen, and add a capable goaltender. Because there are better forwards and defensemen available. Because forwards and defensemen are easier to project. Because goaltenders are a complete crap shoot to project. Because it's much easier to find an elite goaltender beyond the 1st round, than it is to find an elite skater. Because forwards and defensemen have more of an impact on the game, over an 82 game season and playoffs. Because a team needs 12 forwards, 6 defensemen and only 1 goaltender. etc, etc, etc... Or have Hakan Andersson there to make the pick (Raymond)...

I'm not looking at extremes. I'm looking at probability. Sure, there are always good players available at 45, but there are always better players available at 25. You still have to pick the right player, but the higher you draft the higher probability you have at drafting the better player. There's a much bigger gap between pick 5 and pick 25, than there is pick 25 and pick 45, and a much bigger gap again between pick 25 and pick 45, than there is pick 125 and pick 145... I don't think anyone is saying that we should have turned down the Staal deal, I think it was pretty fair value, but it would have been nice to get pick 22 rather than what will likely end up being in the 45ish range. To say otherwise, or that there's not a big gap between the two, is foolish...

What? I'm not sure if you're being serious... There's a massive gap in value between pick 20-25 and 40-45 in any draft...

All forward positions are so fluid nowadays, I don't think it matters too much. I'm sure one of Mantha, Zadina or Holtz (in this case) course play the left side... Regardless if they're on their "strong" or "weak" side, this team desperately needs to add a couple high-end right-handed forwards.

Both Mantha and Zadina can play both wings... Pretty much any winger can play either side...

22nd overall in 2020 is MUCH better than a 2nd round pick (likely in the 40-50 range) in 2021.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well. I also don't think Drysdale has the same elite upside as some of the other forwards available in this draft. If Yzerman does see him as BPA though, I'd be okay with the pick. There are quite a few people that have Sanderson jumping over Drysdale in their final rankings. And to be honest, I can see it. Not saying he will be as good as Heiskanen, but the similarities are there. I probably have as much confidence in Sanderson reaching that sort of ceiling, as I do Drysdale reaching a Makar level ceiling... There's concern there for sure, but no more than with any of the other top guys available in my opinion. I'd be more than okay with Perfetti. Sure, we have Zadina, but we don't have a single right-handed forward in the system. Holtz would definitely fill a huge hole. Zadina has an elite shot, but Holtz' shot may even be better. Having that sort of fire power on both sides of the ice, would be lethal. I think adding a player like Holtz would give us a top ranked power-play in a few years. So yeah, there are a number of picks I'd be more than okay with in this draft. I want Yzerman to select who he believes is best player available, but my personal preference would be one of the big two, if they drop, or Raymond.

I'm not writing off Rasmussen. Not even close. But Veleno > Rasmussen Rangers traded their 2021 2nd, so they could have upped it to a 2021 1st. I think the 2nd is more than fair, just sayin'...

That could be said about literally any player in the league though... "He won't just trade him for the sake of trading him, but if the right deal comes along, he could be traded"... Nothing ground breaking there... Due to size only? Did I say that? Would you want to "break a tie" based on position only? How about handedness only? None of these alone are legitimate reasons to pick a player, but all should be weighed in the decision making process... By the way, two players are never exactly equal across the board, exact same size, same level of skating, shooting, passing, stick handling, puck control, work ethic, hockey IQ, etc. The only difference is one is a winger and one is a center, so let's take the center... That NEVER happens. EVER...

Keep in mind it would be 11th overall. That pick has a TON of value.

I think as long as he can stay healthy, he should be a really good middle six winger.

Yes. This is exactly what I said. I'm sure positional need comes into play in the later rounds, but so do countless other factors... Sure, Yzerman has no "loyalty" to Rasmussen, but that doesn't mean he sees him as expendable either... Why would you take away his 6'6" frame? Like it or not, size is an attribute, and one a lot of general managers covet. Of course the skill needs to be there, but add size to elite skill, and you have a bonafide top line forward (Mantha) / top two defenseman (Seider).

Buying out a contract worth $6M per for 4 years would be a huge mistake to buy out in my opinion. Turris is still a decently effective player, at least for another couple years. I'd take him for a 2020 1st, plus a mid round draft pick, or mid tier prospect.

How the f*** do the Preds continue to develop all these defensemen, seemingly out of nowhere? Ferrance looks like a good defensive prospect, but I'd want him, plus, to take on 4 years of Turris.

Yeah, pretty much this. I'd much rather have Loui Eriksson and a 1st round pick (or whatever other asset), and let a replacement level player like Ehn or Erne walk...

Sure. Which is my point. Again, that was my point. Absolutely. However, I doubt "positional need" is any more of a determining factor, than any other attribute. Be it, handedness, size, hockey IQ, skating, shot, passing, hands, work ethic, etc. All factors that get weighed and ultimately decide who will be selected. I agree, but again, I'm sure Holland and his staff had higher hopes for Ras than we ever did, and I would bet Yzerman does as well. I don't think he will be a top six center, buy I don't think it's out of the question either. Yeah, there were a couple interviews with Wright after the draft in which he all but confirmed that they were looking to add size (above all else). It was kind of funny actually how much more he emphasized "size" and "big body" over "skill"...

Yeah, I'd take Turris, depending on the asset(s) attached. They'd have to be willing to pay a premium. Yeah, it would have to be this year's 1st round pick at minimum, to take on 4 years at $6M for a mediocre 2C.

It's no secret that Tyler Wright valued size in his draft picks, which is likely why we drafted Rasmussen, as well as a bunch of other less skilled, big bodies in his time here. I'm sure that's also a big reason we were leaning Bouchard over Hughes as well. Although, I fully admit, Bouchard was my guy as well. I wouldn't have believed anyone if they told me Hughes would have this seamless a transition to the NHL, and be near a point per game, 20 year old defenseman... I do fully expect Bouchard to be a beast as well though, and still may be the better overall defenseman in 3-5 years.

I'm aware where Brannstrom and Valimaki went in the draft, but they could have been down another 10+ slots on the Wings' board. For all we know, there was no defenseman close for the Wings, and they were between Rasmussen and Suzuki. Maybe they felt Ras was the better pick for what they needed. In hindsight, it's looking like that may be a whiff, but let's give it another couple years, to see what Ras can do in a full NHL season. At the top of the draft, especially a top 10 pick, but even in the later 1st and 2nd rounds, I don't think teams ever draft based on perceived positional "need". I think they have a list and stick to it. In the later rounds, where it's more of a crapshoot, teams may stray from their list a little, but there's so much more than positional need that goes into every pick. The thing is, us as fans may value Drysdale and Rossi (or whoever) very similarly, but general managers and directors of amateur scouting, likely lean heavily one way or the other. This is their job. They spend countless hours every single day, breaking down every aspect of their game. They also go through a thorough interview process with each one of these kids. I highly doubt LA would value Drysdale and Rossi equally, and go with the defenseman, just because Doughty is getting older, and they need to find a replacement... That, in my opinion, is when teams make mistakes on the draft floor. Trust your scouts, and if you can't trust your scouts, hire new scouts... At the time, we had a young Ouellet and Sproul, both taken in the 2nd round. In hindsight, a lot of us fans, and probably even management were higher on them then we ever should have been. You don't think defense is as big a need now because we have Tuomisto and Johansson in the pipe. Not that I think they are, but they could be the next Ouellet and Sproul for all we know. Even Seider. I think he will be a stud, but what if something happens in his development, and he tops out as a shutdown bottom 4 defenseman? Point is, you never know what your team need will be from one year to the next. There are also trades that could happen to fill a positional need. Draft best player available, and if you have a surplus at one position, trade from a position of strength to fill a hole. I highly doubt management made the Rasmussen pick, thinking "we need a monster 3rd line center". I'm sure they seen him more as a top six center. Whether or not that was a little too ambitious, is another thing...

Agreed. I'd take Kessel as a cap dump, but Ekman-Larsson wouldn't be the player I'd want in the deal. It makes no sense for either side.

We had at center, an aging Zetterberg, Nielsen, Larkin, Sheahan, Glendening, Helm, with no top end C prospects in the pipeline.... The only defensemen most people would have considered at 9th overall, was Foote. Brannstrom and Valimaki weren't even in the conversation for most, and I'd still bet on Rasmussen being better than all three. I really wanted Vilardi, and now after finally getting healthy, he looks like he might be the better player. In hindsight, Necas would have probably been the right pick there. It's not crap. It's reality. Most teams that draft well, do not draft by position. They have a list and they stick to hit, regardless of "need". Because need next season could be completely different in 2-3 seasons when that player is finally ready to make the jump. So, it's okay to look at your pipeline and realize you're weak at defense, and take a defenseman, but it's not okay to look at your pipeline and realize you're lacking size, and take a monster center 9th overall? And yes, I do think it's a coincidence that 3 out of those 4 first picks last year were defensemen. I think Yzerman truly believed Seider was the best pick at 4th overall. Same goes for Tuomisto at 35, and Johansson at 60.

I misread, but yeah, no s***... All of those players were obviously the top player's on the Wings' board, but only two of them were definitively the right selection. Well I guess, even for Larkin, there was Pastrnak...

Rasmussen was not the top player left on the board at 9 in his draft. I'd say he was firmly behind at least a couple others at the time, and probably even more in hindsight. Everything we've all heard and read is that Bouchard would have been Holland's pick, if Zadina hadn't fallen, not Hughes.