Dabura

It would be a price so steep that no organization could afford to pay it.

You wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Wings passed on Dahlin? Or you wouldn't be the least surprised if fans rioted over the Wings passing on Dahlin? The first one I can agree with, though there's no way the Wings pass on Dahlin in the first place. The second one, well, like I just said: the Wings would not pass on Dahlin. No organization would. The organization that wins the 1st overall pick is taking Dahlin, guaranteed. (Pick won't be traded.)

14 goals, 15 assists, 29 points through 11 playoff games.

lolpens

Leafs gonna Leaf.

Sure it is. You're claiming the only thing that's held kids back is their own shortcomings, that the Wings make roster decisions based purely on merit, in every single case, with no special consideration ever given to veteran status, contract size, etc. I agree that the kids have mostly sucked and that this has (arguably) hurt their cause more than veteran depth has. I disagree that the Wings are always completely 100% objective in these matters and that there's never been a veteran thing. The notion that the kids have mostly sucked is pretty self-explanatory, so I focused on the veteran thing. The veteran thing is indeed a thing. I'm not saying it's a sinister, conspiratorial thing. On the contrary: it's actually pretty mundane. Why? Because it makes sense. The Wings were perennial contenders for roughly a quarter century. That means going Cup-or-bust every year, which means leaning on proven, experienced veterans and maintaining a winning culture shaped by proven, experienced veterans. It also means having a perpetually shallow prospect pool. All of this is why we get "Tie goes to the veteran." All of this is why we get "This is a man's league." All of this is why we get "overripening" as an overriding development philosophy. All of this is why we get "Why does anyone think [x prospect] is going to be a savior in Detroit right now?" It doesn't mean grave injustices have been inflicted upon countless Wings prospects. It just means the Wings are/were obsessed with veteran depth. The Wings have been veteran-centric for ages now. Again, this is known. It's understood. If I say all of this to an NHL GM (maybe even Holland himself), he's not going to stare at me blankly and ask, "What are you talking about?" He'd acknowledge the perpetually shallow prospect pool and how that's been a major factor in the Wings' reluctance to "go younger," and he'd also acknowledge that the Wings are known for being veteran-centric, possibly to their own detriment in some cases. That's been a big part of the Wings identity for a long time. If you're drafted by the Wings, your path to the NHL is probably going to be longer than it would be with many other organizations. I remember Tatar passive-aggressively threatening to bolt to the KHL because he felt he was overdue for a promotion to the big club and was concerned that the Wings might be placing veteran roadblocks in front of him. I remember Mike Modano. I remember Cleary being kept around way past his expiration date as a player. I remember Blashill revealing that he had to push back against Holland and convince him that Larkin ought to be on the 2015-16 opening night roster. I think arguing that there's absolutely no veteran thing is not arguing in good faith. I also think overstating the impact of the veteran thing on prospects is not arguing in good faith. I think neither side here is arguing in entirely good faith. You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight, though. Honestly, I think you're being kind of hilariously militant about all of this. There've been cases where a kid could've been promoted earlier but wasn't, and I'm not going to say it's totally, completely, 100% because the kid wasn't good enough in every single case. (Nor will I say it's because of a conspiracy to keep kids down.) Ouellet probably would've been a serviceable #6 back then. It's not a grave injustice that he didn't get that roster spot at that time, but I think it's naive/dishonest to say it was entirely a merit thing and that any and all other cases have been only about merit, 100% objective. Question: Why are we limiting this discussion to defensemen? Nyquist probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Tatar probably could've/should've been promoted earlier if it was entirely about merit. Hicketts probably could've/should've made the team out of camp this season if it was entirely about merit. Blashill probably shouldn't have had to butt heads with Holland over Larkin. Hicketts had a great rookie season in the AHL and a great training camp last fall. Maybe Blashill wanted him to improve his skating just a little bit more, that's fine, I totally get that. But, speaking of skepticism, I don't fully buy that he was sent back to the AHL because he didn't do enough to earn a spot and giving him another year in the AHL was really just about doing what was best for his development. He failed to make the cut because Green, Daley, DeKeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson, Jensen, and Ouellet were ahead of him on the depth chart and Holland was not going to move Jensen/Ouellet to make room.

For sure. Maybe Rasmussen was a bad comparable. But you get where I'm coming from, yeah? Worth noting: I've liked Geekie for a while now, so I'm probably a little biased. Maybe the Hurricanes see him as just another prospect, nothing special.

Fair point. I wouldn't say he's as highly regarded as Rasmussen, but it's the same idea: Rasmussen and Geekie are still unknowns with the potential to do great things five years from now, while AA and Kapanen are older and more known and likely wouldn't really give the Hurricanes or Wings anything they don't already have or couldn't get by other, cheaper means. But then, I'm not the Hurricanes' GM, and I've certainly been wrong about countless things in the past.

"No." - Red Wings

I think there's a middle ground here. Have the Wings failed miserably to find D prospects who are actually worth a damn? Yes. Have the Wings been obsessed with stocking the depth chart with as much veteran depth as humanly possible and "overripening" prospects? Yes. Does the latter follow from the former? I would say that it does, but only to an extent. I would say the veteran roadblock thing has indeed been a real thing and that even prospects who are better than the Marchenkos and Jensens and Sprouls would have been held back for somewhat artifically created reasons as opposed to it being purely meritocratic. ("A young Lidstrom would make the team out of camp" isn't really an argument.) Hicketts probably should've made the team out of camp this season. Indeed, Cleary said he was damn close to making the cut. If a player is damn close to making the cut and all of the players who make the cut are veterans, it's fair to cry "ROADBLOCK!" and "DEJA VU!" Several years ago, Babcock wanted Ouellet on the opening night roster and Holland overrode him on it. This veteran thing is a thing. It is known. It has been known for a long time. Draper recently suggested there's been another component to all of this, which I guess you could characterize as "failings of the Wings' development program": We need to expedite this process. We need to get these kids bigger and faster and stronger, quicker, to come in and start challenging for spots. That’s how you get better. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2018/02/10/detroit-red-wings-kris-draper/323124002/ All I know for sure is I'm ready for 1) an influx of high-end prospects and 2) the already-underway youth movement. No more "We feel Libor Sulak has the potential to be a real good player for us in 20 years." Please, God, no more.

Yeah, I really doubt Carolina would go for that. Between Skinner and Lindholm and Rask and Aho and Teravainen, they have plenty of young AA/Mantha-caliber forwards already. What they need is a true gamebreaker, which Geekie could end up being. It would sort of be like us trading Rasmussen for Kasperi Kapanen. Besides, Geekie shoots right-handed, so the Wings wouldn't have any interest in him anyway.

Nothing to get. Sometimes I say dumb stuff just because I can.

The PPP was intentional. This one was a shameful mistake.. OR MAYBE I'M JUST PLAYING MIND GAMES. DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT???

The way I see it, we need everything. Or, put another way: there isn't anything we don't need. All positions are open. We are hiring. Larkin and Mantha are looking like they could be real stars, but we don't know that they're going to be the elite 1C and elite scoring winger that we would ideally like to have in our quest for the Cup. I'm all about the huge step Larkin took this season, but at this point in time there's no guarantee that he doesn't ultimately top out as sort of a Matt Duchene/Kyle Turris, i.e. a serviceable 1C who you'd ideally like to have slotted behind a powerhouse 1C. And if you can't find the powerhouse 1C, you'd like to at least have a couple of those Duchene-Turrises, e.g. Nashville's current two top-six centermen (Johansen and Turris, neither of whom put up especially great numbers this season). But I digress... We're rebuilding. The more picks we have in the next few drafts, the more likely we are to get some really high-end prospects. The more high-end prospects we have, the more likely we are to end up with some elite NHLers. The more elite NHLers we have, the more capable we are of winning the Cup, at least in theory. So, I wouldn't worry about Veleno being overqualified for a 2C role. That would be a good problem to have. The bigger, more immediate concern right now is that we only have one young high-end centerman on the roster (Larkin) and one high-end centerman in the pipeline (Rasmussen). The Wings would be foolish to assume that having Larkin and Rasmussen means they're set at center. IMO, my hypothetical trade-up proposal only gets accepted if our trade partner isn't wild about the available names and believes AA + Vegas's 1st + early 2nd is collectively more valuable than the player he could get with his 9th/10th/11th/12th overall pick. If Hughes or Bouchard or Boqvist is available, we're not getting that pick. But if those guys are gone and Veleno is looking like the best name left on the board? Then we might have a shot. But we don't know what any organization's preference chart looks like. So I dunno. Yep!

I wonder if teams will start tanking because of that risk of being pushed back several spots. Finishing 31st doesn't guarantee you the 1st overall pick or even the 2nd or the 3rd, but it does guarantee that you'll pick no later than 4th overall. Maybe that hypothetical "three spots back" spot becomes the new guaranteed 1st overall pick. I mean, you probably won't see many teams outright gutting themselves like some of the great tank efforts of the past, but I'm not sure the league has completely solved the tanking dilemma.

Muh prefs: D: Dahlin Bouchard Boqvist Hughes Dobson O: Svechnikov Wahlstrom Zadina Veleno Tkachuk

For some people, yes, but I think they're in the minority. Svechnikov is generally considered the top forward in this draft class. For all of the HYPE! around Zadina, Svechnikov quietly obliterated the OHL this season.

I predicted a Wings-Kings SCF way back in the preseason. Where's my Pulitzer Peace Prize?

I hope you're not expecting our forward lineup to not suck next season. Because there's pretty much no way it doesn't suck next season. #Lose4Hughes

Can't think of a no-brainer AA trade, but maybe that AA + Vegas's 1st + one of our 2nds for someone's early-mid 1st idea becomes reality and AA's departure frees up a spot for Rasmussen. Bertuzzi Zetterberg Nyquist Abdelkader Larkin Mantha Helm Nielsen Svechnikov Rasmussen Glendening Frk Witkowski If we luck into drafting Andrei Svechnikov, we could conceivably fit him in as well. Have the Svechnikovs and Rasmussen and Frk constantly battling all season long for three spots. 12 F in the lineup + 2 reserve F + 6 D in the lineup + 1 reserve D + 2 G = 23-man roster. I guess they might want to carry 8 defensemen because of Kronwall, but maybe not. Wait! Witkowski can be a forward or a defenseman! yusss

I'm counting on a trade or two. I'll be surprised if they send Rasmussen back to junior.

PARFAIT

Yup. Tkachuk might be an NHL center, but my money's on him becoming a winger like his his older brother and performing more or less the same as his bro has. I'm thinking Veleno probably goes in the top 12. That said, I'd be thrilled if we could somehow trade up and get him with our second pick. Maybe an AA+ package gets us there? AA + Vegas's 1st + one of our 2nds? Does that get us a pick in the 9-12 range and, if so, would Veleno be worth it?

If I had to choose between Wahlstrom and Tkachuk, I think I'd take Wahlstrom. While it'd be great to have a throwback power-forward with a mean streak and soft hands (Tkachuk), I think Wahlstrom's game is better suited for today's NHL. He's got size, he's a great skater, he plays a physical game and likes to be in the middle of the action -- but he's also a wildly skilled scorer and playmaker with very real gamebreaking ability. And he shoots right-handed. "Yet you say you might be disappointed if we take him in the 6-8 range. Be consistent, man!" I just like those three or four defensemen that much, and we need high-end defensemen that badly. Not that we don't also need a scorer like Wahlstrom (or Zadina), but I don't think he (or Zadina, or Tkachuk) is on Svechnikov's level. If we're not getting Dahlin or Svechnikov, the smart pick is probably Hughes/Boqvist/Bouchard/Dobson. I won't get bent out of shape if the Wings decide otherwise, though. Because all of these players are excellent.

Sharks out for blood. Eight goals. Dayum.