Neomaxizoomdweebie

Good hands. Prefers the off wing. People are comparing him to Holmstrom with better hands, but Groot is a perimeter player, not a net front guy. Needs to develop more of a mean streak. I suspect he will play 3rd line RW.

Likely not.

It would probably require a multiple team deal with a team between us and them. MTL and NJ wont move down to #8. They could trade down to 3-5 range, but it would require a team in that range to be willing to trade down to 8.

#8 Never ever gonna happen. Not with those offers. He would get hung up on.

Speak for yourself heathen. Wings weren't going to get in the top 2 or 3 even without those "useless, unneeded points".

Montreal is not trading that pick.

8th.

Exactly. Which is why you could pair Lids and Rafalski. You don't play Seider and Edvinsson together unless you have that kind of 2nd pair behind it. We don't.

What greats? Dandenault? Bykov? Markov? Olausson? Lidstrom played most of his career with good, but not elite defenseman. That's my point. There is no need to play 2 D of that caliber together. Exactly.

Mitchell is a poor mans Glendening. He isnt anything special but gives the team a decent 4th line and RH center option. Walman will probably be back. He is fine as a 3rd pair option IMO. Staal wasnt as bad as people seem to think he was this past season. If SY cant find any better vet options, I could see him back as LD for Seider. I think Juolevi gets re-signed and waived to GR to serve as an emergency call-up.

Unless we are going into the season with Oesterle, Juolevi, and Walman as our LD (I hope not), I suspect that at least one of Juolevi or Walman are let go or re-signed, waived, and sent down to GR. Probably Juolevi. Stephens and Zadina will both be re-signed and given full time spots on the roster.

Its not a bad example. Early in his career, Lidstrom did play with Coffey. But that was also before Lids had fully developed into one of the best dmen of all time. And when you look at the other defenseman on those rosters, Coffey was the only D partner that made sense at the time. Ramsey, Bergevin, Pushor, Rouse, Eriksson: all were 3rd pair D. The other 2 were Fetisov and Konstantinov. Lidstrom and Coffey werent paired together because they were the 2 best D on the team. It's arguable that they weren't the 2 best D on those teams anyway. After the trade to Detroit, Chelios rarely played with Lids. At the time, Lidstrom was paired with Larry Murphy. Who although being only a year older than Chelios, had obviously had significantly more age related decline than Chelios. After Murphy retired, and before Chelios left the team, Lidstrom played with Mathieu Dandenault, Frederick Olausson, Dmitri Bykov, Mathieu Schneider, Danny Markov, and Brian Rafalski. Even Andreas Lilja played more with Lids than Chelios. My point: Lidstrom was rarely paired as a "dynamic duo" throughout most of his career. Chelios was, at times, a better player than whoever Lids D partner was. And vice versa. Lids and Chelios are arguably among the best NHL defenseman of all time. And yet they were rarely paired together despite playing on the same team. Seider and Edvinsson may not be the next Lidstrom and Chelios. But they will both presumably be elite, dynamic defenseman as well. I suspect, and would hope, that whoever the new coach is, plays them on separate pairs in order to maximize the defense corp.

You better hope doesnt play like a ghost.

Chelios and Lidstrom, 2 future HOF, didnt play together, except for some PK. Seider and Edvinsson will most likely be split up as neither needs an elite partner. And having them on separate pairs allows for one or the other to be in the ice for most of the game.

At that pick, you could go with position without settling for a lesser player.

Gritty top 6 forward who just potted 30 goals while playing in only 68 games. Yup. Overrated.

Exactly. Bert is a completely different player. You arent getting a 30 goal scorer for 5 mil a season.

None of those players are replacements for Bert.

Too low

Stalled progression. It happens. See: Ryan Sproul.

And rightly so.

Too high

Sure. He is not very good.

You're high.