Dabura

https://theathletic.com/68620/2017/06/19/source-red-wings-on-short-list-for-top-college-free-agent-spencer-foo/

Old interview, but, for what it's worth... http://mayorsmanor.com/2017/04/college-fa-spencer-foo-on-the-process-of-selecting-his-nhl-team/ “Instead of wanting to jump in right away — obviously I do want to make an opening lineup and play right away as much as I can – but, I’m more of a long-term kind of thinker. I don’t want to go in and just have a cup of coffee in the NHL. I want to try and make a career out of it I’m going to do whatever I can to achieve that. I’m looking at opportunity right now, but I think the biggest thing for me is what’s going to be the biggest fit over the long-term for me. How am I going to develop on certain teams? What type of guys am I going to be playing with? Those are the biggest things for me; I want to treat it as a long-term thing. If I end up signing with a team and they don’t think I’m ready at the start of next year, then I’ll go pay my dues, as long as I’m trying to work towards a career and not just getting to a first game. So, I want to do what’s best for me long-term.”

Foo me once, shame on you...

Spencer Foo colluded with Russia, source says.

I'm not even talking about superstar talent. I'm talking, like, "very good 2C, serviceable 1C on a bad team" (e.g. Matt Duchene, Jordan Staal, younger Martin Hanzal). I've been pretty clear on this point for the past couple of months: Michael Rasmussen is the one player I did not want us to WANTED us to NOT TAKE with the ninth overall pick. If you dig into his stats and read more than just one or two of the credible scouting reports, you find major red flags. Or, if you're short on time, you can just read that report I linked. Excerpt: Just how bad are Michael Rasmussen's numbers, you ask? In 50 games at 5v5: 14.98 min/GP (about 750 minutes of ice time) 12 goals (37.5% of his total goals scored) 3 first assists (yes, you read that right. Three first assists in 50 GAMES. Three first assists in 750 minutes of ice time at 5v5. That was also 25% of his total first assists for the season) 4 second assists (40% of his secondary assists) .96 G/60 (19th out of 87 forwards) .24 A1/60 (9th worst of any first-time eligible forward in the WHL that played 50 games or more) -8.44 GF%Rel (16th worst) From where I stand, Michael Rasmussen has "middle-six NHL winger" written all over him. I'm not saying he's guaranteed to be a bust. I'm saying there were better options, safer bets. And I'm saying all of this as someone who's seen most of the consensus North-American first-rounders -- and some of the Euros -- in person. "So I take it you hated the Mantha pick. Yes?" Mantha is a big body, but it was clear that we was a high-end talent, a natural scorer blessed with God-given gifts -- a low-risk, high-reward selection. I don't see that with Rasmussen. I see a power play specialist. And even then... He's much bigger than 99% of his peers, which won't be the case at the pro level I don't feel the net-front position ranks among our power play's biggest problems I sincerely hope Michael Rasmussen is the real deal. If he becomes a bona fide 60-point centerman at the NHL level, I'll gladly eat crow. (Though, again, my complaint is not "There's absolutely no way he'll ever become a really good NHLer." My complaint is that Rasmussen was not the best player available at #9, that taking Rasmussen inside of the top ten was a misguided reach.) I'm going to hope for Martin Hanzal/Nick Foligno but set my expectations at Nick Bjugstad/Jimmy Hayes. I'm also going to remind myself that we're in the beginning stages of a rebuilding effort that will probably take the better part of the next ten years to complete. Rasmussen is but one piece of a puzzle. I did my HYSTERICS! bit, got it out of my system, settled down. Now I'm trying to keep things in perspective and convince myself to trust in #TeamHolland. Let's see how the rest of this draft shakes out for us.

Going to bed now. Peace out, y'allz.

I dislike the pick because I don't think Rasmussen is a true high-end talent. I think his stock was inflated because he's 6'6" tall. I pray I'm wrong, but I fear he's another Sheahan. I hate to link to this for the 70th time, but, from everything I've seen and heard and read, I feel it's on-point: https://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2017/4/11/15259068/dr-dangles-prospect-profiles-michael-rasmussen-c-tri-city-americans-15

OK, I've vented and ingested some booze. I feel a little better. Welcome aboard, Rasmussen. I hope you become the next Jesus Christ. If you fail to become the next Jesus Christ, I will boo you mercilessly at every opportunity. #Family

DON'T JUDGE MEH

The shame. It burns. It burns white hot. brb hanging myself

He's one of the few consensus North-American first-rounders I haven't seen in person. But I've watched stuff on YouTube and spoken to people who've seen him in person. Those people say he's effective but unremarkable.

Rasmussen doesn't respek da system. Da system respeks Rasmussen. Rasmussen isn't like Holmstrom. Holmstrom was like Rasmussen. The Red Wings didn't pick Rasmussen. Rasmussen picked the Red Wings.

Ken Holland and his cronies.

Exactly. Rasmussen is like Holmstrom -- but better. And by "like Holmstrom -- but better" I mean "not like Holmstrom, but that's how they're going to spin it." WE NEEDZ THE NETS FRONTS. ABBY FAILED. SHEAHANAHAHAN FAILED. HELP US RASMUSSEN, YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE. NETZ FRONTS. GRITZ. SIZE. POWAH FAWUD.

I'm saying we feel he's a real good player, obviously he's got some real good size, and that's something we feel we lack in our forward group, obviously he's real good on the power play, obviously he's a real good he's a good real obviously defensively responsible responsible defensively real good big body boy oh boy atta boy kiddo way to go kiddo bingo bango he's big and the Wings needed to get bigger up front and that's exactly what they did this is the power forward we've sorely needed he's a dynamic player who can do it all he's probably the next Holmstrom except bigger and better and he's real good and good real and y'know we feel he gives us a real good package of real good defensively good real defense power play net front real good real big body. Defensively responsible.

He's not even good at a lot of things. He's a hundred feet taller than his peers, he hangs around the net, he puts in easy goals. That's Michael Rasmussen. He's not a high-skill player. He's not a playmaker. He's not a naturally gifted goal-scorer. He's not a two-way force. He's big. That's it. I mean, I'm no NHL amateur scout. But, from where I stand, at this moment in time, this is an awful decision. Even if Vilardi or Liljegren isn't available and you have your heart set on Rasmussen, TRADE BACK A FEW SPOTS AND DRAFT HIM AT #13 OR WHATEVER. I hope I'm wrong. I hope Rasmussen becomes a franchise center. But, realistically, he's going to be another bottom-six grinder.

I'm pretty livid, I'm not gonna lie. Having Vilardi fall to us and picking MICHAEL RASMUSSEN, the one guy I WANTED US TO NOT PICK, is the perfect cherry on our 2016-17 season.

My waifu.

Cool story, bro.

They'll find a way to get Patrick or Hischier. Because God is dead.

Red Wings tho.

Fortunately, #TradesAreHard, so we're probably safe.

Yeah, I'm not terribly high on Hamonic.

Re: Hamonic,

Trades are hard.