Dabura

I have the same boom/bust concern with pretty much every one of the realistic candidates. Hell, I'm not even fully sold on Power or Beniers. Not that either one of those two will be there at 6OA, mind you. Of the guys who realistically *could* be there at 6OA, I'm thinking Hughes or Eklund would probably be the overall "best-value" pick. Luke Hughes maybe isn't quite as electrifying as Quinn Hughes, but he's a comparable skater and a comparable playmaker and a better shooter – and he's taller. Any concerns about his defensive game are rendered moot if Seider is the player we think he is. People are big-time sleeping on how dominant a Hughes-Seider could very easily be. Eklund is basically Raymond. Plays an incredibly mature all-around game. Off-the-charts IQ. Great hands. Great problem-solver and playmaker. As with Hughes and Seider, it's a potential pairing that really gets me excited about Eklund – that pairing being Eklund-Raymond. If we're hoping for a new Datsyuk-Zetterberg...Eklund-Raymond could be it. For whatever reason, a voice in me is still saying we're gonna take McTavish or Lucius. I dunno. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Of all the potential skater candidates at 6OA (i.e. everyone not named Owen Power or Matthew Beniers), Hughes is, to me, the one guy who checks all the boxes and settles the "Should we take a skater or the goalie?" question himself. Having a great goalie would be great. But a Hughes-Seider pairing? That's the stuff dreams are made of. Because Hughes is *exactly* what we'd want in Seider's left-side defense partner. Coming away from this draft with Hughes-Seider in the oven...and then going into next season with a shot at landing one of those marquee 2022 forwards...is how you change the narrative from "The Wings have some nice pieces" to "The Wings are building something special." I'm not confident Hughes will be there at 6, though.

This is a pretty good post.

I will say the following in defense of the #TeamWallstedt cause: > If we're looking to say our prayers and swing for the fences with a high-risk, high-reward selection...BAH GAWD! THAT'S JESPER WALLSTEDT'S MUSIC! > If we're instead looking to play it safe and take a guy with a probably-not-sky-high ceiling but a probably-pretty-high floor...BAH GAWD! THAT'S ALSO JESPER WALLSTEDT'S MUSIC! > Wallstedt is arguably a better goalie prospect than [skater] is a [skater's position] prospect. > The plan is to be done with this rebuild within the next 3-5 years. I'm assuming the worst is already behind us, and that we're going to start improving year-over-year, and that we're going to get zero lotto luck, and that Yzerman and his scouts aren't going to find a bunch of top-line gems outside the first round – basically, that we're not going to emerge from this rebuild with Cernak, Cirelli, Gourde, Hedman, Killorn, Kucherov, Palat, Point, Sergachev (Drouin), Stamkos, and Vasilevsky. Point being: A great goalie could be an equalizer for us and a goalie equalizer may well be a necessity.

Oh, I know. I was just being rhetorical. I think it's a worthwhile debate. Indeed, it's one I've waded into. But, like, peeps be knifing each other in the kidneys over this s***. IT AIN'T WORTH IT, BROS! SAVE YOUR VITRIOL FOR SEIDER WHEN HE ONLY PUTS UP ONE POINT THROUGH HIS FIRST THREE NHL GAMES!

what are we even arguing about

As a bit of an aside... I mostly agree with Tony Ferrari's takes on the centermen in question (while not fully agreeing with his rankings): 2021 NHL Draft Rankings: The Final Cut [Dobber Prospects]

Facts. It's a speed & skill league...in the regular season. In the playoffs, it's a systems & checking league. Same as it ever was. I feel McTavish's playmaking is better than his stats would suggest. I think he's such a shoot-first player because, well, why wouldn't he be? If you're an ultra-competitive teenager with a shot like that, your game is going to be built around getting that shot off. Same deal with Chaz Lucius (who's arguably a deadlier shooter than McTavish). It's not a bad point you're making, though. If I'm gonna knock 2017 Rasmussen for his highlight compilations being nothing but cleaning up around the net and firing hard shots, I should acknowledge that McTavish's highlight compilations are basically just him burying shots and throwing his weight around. I maintain that McTavish is the more capable playmaker, but I do feel he's likely a winger at higher levels and that the playmaking is one of the reasons why. But here's the thing: I dunno that we need our not-Larkin top-six centerman to be a great playmaker, because we really do have a lot of playmaking talent on the wings – most notably Raymond, whose whole thing is that he's a freakishly good problem-solver and puck-distributor and possession-driver. If he lives up to expectations, he's going to be a serious bus-driver.

The points you're hitting on are basically how I rationalized the pick to myself on draft day and how I continue to rationalize the pick here in mid-2021. We can say we made a boring, high-floor pick instead of swinging for the fences on a more high-skill guy. And there's some truth to that. But we can also say Rasmussen is an "If he gets anywhere close to his ceiling, look the f*** out" case. He's not a puck wizard, but he does have soft hands around the net. Combine that with his frame and we have a guy who could be a gamebreaking power play weapon. I think that's still a thing. And he has that scoring potential *while also having Hanzel-esque shutdown potential*. I think that's also still a thing. So, sure, maybe the pick kinda sucked – but maybe the "We only picked him becuse of his size and now look where we're at" narrative is a little dumb. I do think about Holmstrom. I also think about Franzen, who we drafted as an overage shutdown 3C. A key difference, of course, is that those guys were part of crazy-deep ensemble casts with legendary talent at the tops of the lineups...whereas we're currently rebuilding in the Age of Parity™ with zero love from the lotto gods. Still, there's something to be said for having the right mix of player types. Like I said re: McTavish, we have Larkin and Vrana and Zadina and Veleno and Raymond and Berggren and Niederbach. How many hard-nosed power-forwards with laser shots do we have in the system? Maybe this particular hard-nosed power-forward with a laser shot isn't all that special in a vaccum – but maybe he's a fit for what we're trying to build. Maybe we think he could be a great complement to our otherwise smallish, well-mannered forwards. Maybe we think of the power play possibilities. Imagine, for example, Vrana and Raymond working the half-walls with Ramussen as the net-front guy and McTavish as the bumper and Seider running point. Rasmussen Raymond -- McTavish -- Vrana Seider In theory, that's a Zdeno Chara parked in front of the net...and an absolute firing squad in Raymond, McTavish, Vrana...and a playmaking possession monster in Raymond...and a tank owning that middle ice in McTavish...and Seider doing Seider things.

I'm just saying if people are counting on bottom 3 finishes for at least two more years, that might not be how it plays out. The "Well, at least we know we're godawful and will be in the dead center of the mix for that 1OA pick" stage of our rebuild might already be over, regardless of what Yzerman does.

In the lead-up to that draft, I made it clear that Rasmussen was the one guy I actively did not want us to take. Had a borderline meltdown on these boards when we took him. Had to talk myself off the ledge. My issue with Rasmussen was his ludicrous size and strength advantage over his peers. Watching highlight compilations, all you saw was him cleaning up around the net and firing shots. No high-level playmaking. No creativity. Because there was no need. Major junior was easy for him. Like 2017 Rasmussen, McTavish has a size and strength advantage, and his game isn't particularly flashy, and he's definitely more a goal-scorer than he is a playmaker, and he's probably more a winger than he is a centerman, and his skating isn't great, and his defensive competence arguably is overstated by a lot of people. So, yeah, I'm not super-high on McTavish. But I think he's a more dynamic player than 2017 Rasmussen; he can attack in a variety of ways, and he has a good natural sense of which way is the correct way in any given situation, and he'll lean into his path of attack and go HAM on it. I really like his competitiveness. I like his intensity. I like his relentlessness. He's a conventional alpha dog. I like that he's a goal-scorer. I like that he scored a lot of goals in his stint in a men's league. Would I take him at 6OA? Maybe, maybe not. I think he's a fit for the Wings in that we'd love to have a rugged power-forward with a lethal shot, even if he's not a full-time centerman. We've got a lot of pass-first playmakers in the system. We've got a lot of two-way guys. We've got a lot of good skaters. We've got a lot of smallish forwards. I like the thought of adding a tank whose o-zone game is more high-end Swiss Army knife than you might expect it to be, given his size and strength advantage. He can stomp around on the forecheck and cycle. His shot is good enough that he's probably going to be a legit threat to beat NHL goalies clean from anywhere below the tops of the circles. He's very good at putting himself in high-danger areas. In a normal draft year, I figure I'd consider him a reach at 6OA. Not this year, though. Not this draft.

The possibility that we don't finish in prime lotto territory next season is something I've been considering. We're no longer running down the clock on a glut of albatross contracts. Yzerman wants the team to start getting younger and more competitive. Seider could be an immediate difference-maker. Injuries shouldn't be as big a problem as they were this season. All of which is to say: Maybe this team's upswining is already underway. I dunno that that should impact our drafting strategy in the here and now. But it's something to think about.

In my shoot-from-the-hip mock draft of the top 8 that I did right after the lotto draw results, I had CBJ taking McTavish. I do suspect they'd like to get a centerman, and I think McTavish's rugged game fits their brand. I'd be fine with us getting McTavish. I know some people are concerned that he's "a rich man's Abdelkader." And I respect that. But I'd say there's roughly the same level of risk with all the candidates. There's definitely an argument to be made that we should be taking a really high-skill puck wizard type (indeed, that's why I like Lucius), but I can very easily imagine those guys becoming Athanasiou types, i.e. highly skilled but not particularly great players. McTavish reminds me of Brayden Point in some ways. Plays a smart, straightforward, responsible, highly-competitive "I'm going to beat you because I just am" type of game. Seems to thrive in big-stage settings.

I'm on record saying we take McTavish or Lucius. But, yeah, we might as well be picking names out of a hat. Wiiiiiiiiide open.

If we do take a goalie with our first pick, it'll be for exactly the reasons you've listed.

This. It's not happening. Yzerman himself has said as much. It only makes sense if Yzerman feels the add would allow us to declare the rebuild finished and start operating like a playoff team next season. For example: sign Hamilton, trade Hronek (+ winger) for a 2C. But, again, that's not happening.

Your mom = Busty

The Habs are on one of the greatest Cinderella spoiler runs in modern NHL history; I'd be shocked if tons of people *weren't* butthurt. It's not like this is some crazy-unprecedented thing, though. The Knights went all the way to the SCF in their inaugural season. The 2018-19 Blues went from rock bottom to hoisting the Cup. The Stars somehow made it to the SCF last (half-)season. I think what we're seeing with these miracle runs is that it's never been easier to catch lightning in a bottle – and I think the reason for that is the ceiling that's placed on dominant teams by the salary cap ecosystem. Live by the Parity™, die by the Parity™.

HABSOLUTE MADMEN

To be clear, I'm not hardcore disagreeing with you. I just think the buyer's remorse re: Zadina is a little overblown. If you put Quinn Hughes on the past two Wings teams, we're probably not super-crazy about him here in mid-2021. I can hear it in my head: "He's small and soft and he can't play defense and he isn't scoring any more than Hronek is. He's a forward masquerading as a defenseman." And if Zadina's tearing it up with the Habs right now (which probably would be the case, because this Habs team exists to defy conventional wisdom), we're all saying, "Well, that's what a top 3 pick gets you." Point being: The Wings are a very bad team and pretty much all these players we're wishing we'd taken with that 6OA pick are playing for better teams, and this makes it tough to get a really solid read on how our guy stacks up against the other guys at this point in time. It's that philosophical question: Does Pavel Datsyuk become Pavel Datsyuk if he spends his career with, say, the Islanders? I get where you're coming from, though. Like I said, I'm not hardcore disagreeing with you. If we're taking a winger at 6OA when we have a clear organizational need for very good defensemen and there's a crop of very good defenseman available at 6OA (Hughes, Boqvist, Bouchard, Dobson, Smith), I don't want to be saying, "Maybe he's a slightly lesser Tatar and maybe that's perfectly fine," at the end of his D+3 season. I want to be saying, "Dude is money. Thank God we picked him." We don't feel that way right now. We're not thanking God we picked Zadina. But I'm not convinced we'd be much happier with any of the alternatives. Because I'm not convinced those players are (going to be) significantly better than Zadina. I wanna see how Zadina does in a full season on a team that, at bare minimum, isn't ravaged by injuries.

I just hope we nail the pick. That's all I ask. I want a very good NHLer.

Thing is, pretty much all those players were drafted by organizations that are icing actual NHL teams. As in, like, actual NHL forward groups and actual NHL defense groups and actual NHL power plays. I don't look at any of those players and say, "Yeah, this guy is the reason why his team is an actual legit NHL team. He's driving that bus. They'd be wallowing in the gutter with the Wings if they didn't have him." Would I take Hughes in a redraft? Sure. But let's be clear on what Hughes is right now (and possibly forever), which is a super-sheltered all-offense defenseman who pots half his points on the power play. Is he a top-pairing defenseman on a Cup-winning team? Can he do heavy lifting and consistently win matchups against the league's best players? I'm not so sure. Maybe if he's paired with Victor Hedman or Alex Pietrangelo – but that's sort of my point. If he needs a Hedman, he's more Rafalski than he is Lidstrom. (The elephant in the room, of course, is Seider could end up being That Guy you'd love to pair with Hughes. But hindsight is 20/20.) As for Veleno...I don't think he's shown much, tbh. We're a team with 1 centerman yet it's taken Veleno this long just to get his cup of coffee. (Granted, COVID played a role in that.) He's probably gonna start next season in Grand Rapids and get a half season of NHL play in and then he's probably gonna take at least another half season to really get his feet under him at the NHL level. So, if we're down on Zadina for putting up 37 points in 86 NHL games, let's note that Veleno has put up 1 point in 5 NHL games.

Zadina's D game is fine. Always has been. Blashill's said as much. If anything, the real challenge for Zadina has been finding ways to create offense in the o-zone, e.g. being more aggressive in the corners. And, to his credit, he showed a lot of growth in that regard this season. Anyone who watched the games saw that. It's just that the points aren't coming (yet). Deploying him "like Montreal deploys Caufield as an offense first shooter with linemates and D" wasn't an option this season because of the injuries. Blashill consistently played Zadina in a top-line role because he was consistently one of our better players and he showed he could handle it. If you wanted Zadina in an all-offense role, then he would've been playing on a line with, like, Filppula and Gagner. And, in that case, with Bertuzzi and Larkin and Fabbri out, who's eating the tough top-line minutes? See the problem? If we're going to criticize Zadina (and Blashill, for that matter), let's criticize him for actual things. "He's bad defensively" isn't an actual thing. An example of an actual thing is "He got juicy minutes on the top power play unit and couldn't consistently do the one thing we'd reasonably expect him to be able to do, which is bury shots from the half-wall when he has time and space."

Well, it doesn't have to be a Bernier-Greiss tandem. My point in referencing those two is that adequate goalie talent is always available for cheap. Would you love to have a borderline franchise guy between the pipes? Absolutely! But, in general, I think having high-end talent at the key skater positions is more important than having a high-end goalie, if for some reason you have to pick between the two. And, in general, I would say top 10 picks are how a rebuilding team gets most of its core skaters. Basically: It's about playing the odds and trying to get maximum value for your super-valuable picks. While I don't feel Wallsted @ 6-12OA would necessarily be stupid or reckless, I do feel it probably wouldn't be playing the odds. And even if I didn't feel this way, I'm pretty sure most GMs do. And I'm including Yzerman in that group, because I feel the "He's a total maverick" narrative is overblown. So, point being: I'm not expecting us to take Wallstedt with our first pick. ...But I'm not 100% discounting the possibility. Because if the best alternatives are, say, Eklund, Edvinsson, Johnson, Clarke...you could argue these guys are boom/bust, or high-floor, low-ceiling.

Do you see any hot MILF professors around? (Not a rhetorical question. Please let me know if you see any. I'm desperate.)