Dabura

We talking about the same guy who turned Brendan Smith and Tomas Tatar into a 1st, three 2nds, and a 3rd?

On a completely unrelated note...

(We are arguing over nothing and I love it. lol)

Cam Robinson: Here's that assessment with the bit about Patrick Kane crossed out: Point being, the Patrick Kane comparison isn't centrally important. People will make the comparison, but the decidedly well-informed tastemakers aren't basing their Hughes HYPE! on Patrick Kane or Connor McDavid or anyone other than Hughes himself. Hughes stands on his own.

It sure seems like it is. Because I don't think this argument you're making holds much water. It seems to me like you're tying yourself in a knot to justify picking someone other than Hughes. But maybe I'm being unfair. (It's been known to happen.) That's not an unreasonable take. But, again, I think you're strawmanning here. My impression is the "McDavid Jr." narrative isn't really a thing; it feels like you're forcing this in here to help your argument. The hype machine is always going to be a thing, and, yeah, "Hughes could be generational" is definitely a thing that's out there. But I don't see many decidedly well-informed people going HAM on that point. If they're going HAM on a point, it's that Hughes appears to be the best player in this draft class -- in a tier all his own -- and he's a very special player. He's a kind of player that you don't necessarily see in every draft class. If we're going to put on our We're Smarter Than Those People Who Aren't Very Smart hats, why not cast the same skeptical light on every player in this draft class? Why is Hughes the only one we're (hypothetically) knocking down a peg? Let's be hard on Kakko. Let's be hard on Cozens. Let's be hard on Zegras. Let's be hard on everyone. Then, when we're done being hard on everyone, maybe we can agree that everyone is flawed and has the potential to be a disappointment but Hughes is probably the least risky pick...? That there are more Barkovs than there are Kanes and McDavids is irrelevant. Hughes is the best prospect in this draft class and he's the odds-on favorite to become something truly special. If I felt like a lot of people were down on Hughes, that'd be one thing. If Hughes didn't thoroughly impress me, that'd be one thing. But neither of those situations is the reality; my impression is pretty much everyone has Hughes at #1 -- and, personally, I have him at #1 on my list, based on his numbers and my own viewings. But...nearly everyone agrees that Hughes is the best prospect and is the safest bet for a gamechanging talent. If, say, the Kings win the lottery, I could maybe see them taking Kakko over Hughes at #1. But I'd be surprised. Because everyone and everything points to Hughes being The Guy, the best value for the first overall pick. Kakko is probably more NHL-ready, but that doesn't mean much to me, personally. Beyond Kakko, I agree with the consensus that there's a big drop-off. I'm not saying there won't be gems, I'm just talking about making the best bets we can with the information we have. -_______- tl;dr The Wings' most pressing need is [x]. Of the players in this draft class, Jack Hughes is the one who's most likely to become [x]. His floor is also very high, IMO (i.e. I'll be very surprised if Cozens becomes the better NHLer). I don't care about Kane, I don't care about McDavid, I don't care about Gaudreau, I don't care about Barkov, I don't care about Kopitar.

YOU MUDDAFUGGA

No reason not to set the ask high at this point in time. It's standard procedure for negotiations: one side aims too high, the other side lowballs, and eventually they find an agreeable middle ground, which happens to be what both parties were anticipating from the start. Ironically, you only get that middle ground if each side digs in its heels and fights. Ask for a 1st and a high-end prospect for Nyquist, ultimately settle on a more modest return.

You're saying a lot, but all I'm really getting from it is "I'm not big on Hughes." (Which is fine.) Hughes appears to be the most purely talented player in this draft class. Hughes appears to have the highest ceiling and quite possibly the highest floor. Hughes appears to be the safest bet for a gamechanging talent. There are question marks about him, but there are question marks about everyone. You think Cozens might be the next Barkov? Well, my assessment of him is he's lacking in truly high-end hockey sense, his stats are inflated by the fact that he's bigger and faster than most of his peers, and he's probably a winger at the NHL level. I could go down the list of all the top names. This "It's safer betting on Cozens becoming Barkov than on Hughes becoming Kane or McDavid" angle strikes me as strawmanning sophistry. The Wings are in desperate need of a truly special player and most people believe Hughes is the most special player in this draft class -- and people aren't just basing this on superficial stylistic similarities to top NHLers. I think this is fair and compelling (and it largely lines up with my own first-hand impressions): http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/news/jack-hughes-nhl-draft-2019-world-junior-championship/nt8oxhtf6zns11k4dlrwokofu If it's a matter of wanting two cracks at a top talent instead of one (e.g. Kakko + Newhook versus just Hughes), suppose we pick first overall and take Hughes with that pick AND find a way to trade up into the mid-1st round. So, we'd be getting Hughes and possibly a guy like Newhook. That would be pretty incredible, no?

I dunno, I don't see any of those pieces going HAM on the "McDavid Jr." narrative. I think the actual buzzgasm that people are stoking is that he's arguably the best prospect to come out of the USNTDP. So, basically, that he could be someone on the level of Kane or Matthews. And while that might sound ridiculous on its face, it's definitely a case that can be made in good faith. I still don't find your hypotheticals about non-Hughes players being more likely to hit certain hypothetical ceilings to be very compelling. I get that you don't like the hype machine (I'm not overly fond of it either), but when you go on about how Kakko could become Kopitar and Cozens could become Barkov, you're basically indulging in the very same thing you're knocking. At the end of the day, it's all "This player could become this player," and very little of it is decidedly scientific. If you think Cozens is more likely to become Barkov than Hughes-->Kane, ok. But, personally, that doesn't really convince me of anything and it doesn't change my personal rankings one bit. Hughes is still my #1; I think he has the highest ceiling, I think he's the most purely talented player, and I think his floor is very high. I'm amused by the small minority of people who unironically worship at his altar and I'm equally amused by the small minority of people who go out of their way to knock him.

My impression is the tournament hasn't really changed many minds regarding Hughes versus Kakko; the vast majority of people still have Hughes at #1. Also, I haven't seen many (any?) people come out and say he's the best prospect since McDavid. I dunno, maybe you and I are reading different sources, but I read pretty much everything, so... *shrug* If you're saying people put too much stock in the WJC, I totally agree.

Larkin's already a pretty good 1C and he has the potential to become a great 1C. I guess for me the dream is simply that we find a powerhouse 1C who can push Larkin down to the 2C spot, giving us the kind of really enviable center depth that wins Cups. Ideally, I want two or three of our best players to be somewhat overqualified for the roles they're playing. (See: Malkin, Tavares.) If we can get to that point, we'll be in very good shape. You can win Cups without crazy-good center depth, but, in keeping with the theme, I'd rather see a Wings team that's overstocked with high-end talent than one that needs all of its horses going at 100% all the time. This is just dreaming, though. We'll see what the near future actually brings.

Yup. That's the dream.

Realistically, I doubt we're all that close to Cup-ready. That being said, what I think we're lacking is "merely" a couple of stars, which is perhaps a more appealing situation than needing to build up good depth (which we more-or-less already have). Just takes one pick to land a star, whereas good organizational depth takes time to cultivate. The way I see it, we've been building up depth over the past few years and now we're in a position to land a real stud or two (cuz we suck and we're stockpiling picks).

Glad you had a good time!

Bertuzzi's first goal (DET 1, MIN 0): Vanek's first goal (DET 2, MIN 1): Vanek's second goal (DET 3, MIN 2): Bertuzzi's second goal (DET 4, MIN 2): Bertuzzi's third goal (DET 5, MIN 2):

Points update: Bertuzzi (3G) - 13 goals and 25 points thru 45 games Larkin (2A) - 18 goals and 43 points thru 47 games Nyquist (2A) - 10 goals and 39 points thru 47 games Hronek (2A) - 3 goals and 10 points thru 21 games Green (1A) - 3 goals and 17 points thru 25 games

RED WINGS WIN!!!

PP with 5:27 left.

BTW, Wings outshooting the Wild 35-16.

Jonathan Ericsson!