2017 Draft

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

16 minutes ago, mackel said:

Yes.  But if this were another sport maybe basketball then your nationality would be irrelevant.  Because the conclusion would make sense.  Since my original point seems to be lost I said all things being equal I'd take the Canadian over the ___________.... and by the way rink size was on my mind when I said hockey environment.

It was nice to see you agreed with me in the end though.  

On the Michigan ties...  Abby and Glenny are over paid... which seems to fly in the face of the home town discount narrative, DK signed here due to Michigan ties...  his play has warranted criticism and maybe even a seat in the pressbox.  But on here I've read posts from people saying well he signed here because of this and that treat him with kid gloves...  which is foolish.

"Immersive hockey environment" = rink size? Ok yeah, I'm sure you meant that the whole time bud lol

I don't agree with you. You prefer Canadians simply because they're Canadians. That's asinine. Glad you can finally admit it though.

Your original statement was that we have marginal Michigan boys paid like high-end players. Are you suggesting Abby, Glenny, and DK are paid like high-end players? Or are you now trying to back peddle to they're "overpaid" after the fact like you did with rink size?

 

[mackel 675]

15 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

"Immersive hockey environment" = rink size? Ok yeah, I'm sure you meant that the whole time bud lol

I don't agree with you. You prefer Canadians simply because they're Canadians. That's asinine. Glad you can finally admit it though.

Your original statement was that we have marginal Michigan boys paid like high-end players. Are you suggesting Abby, Glenny, and DK are paid like high-end players? Or are you now trying to back peddle to they're "overpaid" after the fact like you did with rink size?

 

I didn't "admit" anything and it's not asinine... all things being equal why wouldnt you take the kid from the top hockey nation.  You must be a lawyer or politician by trade with your talent for twisting what people say.

Yes rink size was on my mind.... it is after all where the game is played (you may not be aware).

Truthfully I'm not sure what language I used about the pay of some of our Michigan scrubs... but that does not change the fact that Abby and Glenny are paid too much for too long for what they are, with DKs regression he may back his way onto that list also... management can't be blamed there though.  Which blows a mile wide hole in the hometown discount notion.

Edited March 22, 2017 by mackel

[DickieDunn 2,571]

If rink size was the issue you wouldn't have excluded Americans or Europeans who played juniors in North America. You're just acting like another xenophobic Don Cherry Wannabe dinosaur crying that the pansy Euro players are taking the jobs away.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, mackel said:

I didn't "admit" anything and it's not asinine... all things being equal why wouldnt you take the kid from the top hockey nation.  You must be a lawyer or politician by trade with your talent for twisting what people say.

Yes rink size was on my mind.... it is after all where the game is played (you may not be aware).

Truthfully I'm not sure what language I used about the pay of some of our Michigan scrubs... but that does not change the fact that Abby and Glenny are paid too much for too long for what they are, with DKs regression he may back his way onto that list also... management can't be blamed there though.  Which blows a mile wide hole in the hometown discount notion.

Ok, let's pretend that place of birth is somehow a predictor of skill, and that being Canadian gives you a natural advantage. Which province do you prefer your Canadian players be from?

Yeah rink size was on your mind... except you never mentioned it until I brought it up... and you excluded Americans who play on the same rink size. Sure bud.

Not sure what language you used? Ok, if you forgot, simply go back and read your own posts lol they're literally right there...

Edited March 22, 2017 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[mackel 675]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ok, let's pretend that place of birth is somehow a predictor of skill, and that being Canadian gives you a natural advantage. Which province do you prefer your Canadian players be from?

Yeah rink size was on your mind... except you never mentioned it until I brought it up... and you excluded Americans who play on the same rink size. Sure bud.

Not sure what language you used? Ok, if you forgot, simply go back and read your own posts lol they're literally right there...

It's a message board not a memoir... I don't type everything that enters my mind while I'm posting.

If you want to frame your agreeing with me as some sort of win by insisting you told me why I was right then have at it...

I didn't say place of birth was a predictor of skill. You said that and projected it falsely on my position.  I've gone out of my way since the beginning to indicate I would take a Canadian player of relatively equal skill over another player from _________.  

I did forget and it wasn't worth the effort going back on my phone to look.  When I could simply comment again on that aspect of the post which you consistently don't acknowledge.  Which, I assume, for an argumentative individual like yourself must mean that you tacitly agree but want to argue about language and other peripheral nonessentials rather than acknowledge the core point.

We have players on this team massively overpaid in dollars and term with those Michigan connections which means no real hometown discount.

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

If rink size was the issue you wouldn't have excluded Americans or Europeans who played juniors in North America. You're just acting like another xenophobic Don Cherry Wannabe dinosaur crying that the pansy Euro players are taking the jobs away.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

It's a factor not the only one, I'm not worried about NHL players jobs.  They make gobs of money to play a game... they don't need defending.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 minutes ago, mackel said:

It's a message board not a memoir... I don't type everything that enters my mind while I'm posting.

If you want to frame your agreeing with me as some sort of win by insisting you told me why I was right then have at it...

I didn't say place of birth was a predictor of skill. You said that and projected it falsely on my position.  I've gone out of my way since the beginning to indicate I would take a Canadian player of relatively equal skill over another player from _________.  

I did forget and it wasn't worth the effort going back on my phone to look.  When I could simply comment again on that aspect of the post which you consistently don't acknowledge.  Which, I assume, for an argumentative individual like yourself must mean that you tacitly agree but want to argue about language and other peripheral nonessentials rather than acknowledge the core point.

We have players on this team massively overpaid in dollars and term with those Michigan connections which means no real hometown discount.

I partially agreed with your conclusion, and totally disagreed with your premise. I prefer NA players because of familiarity with NA ice. You prefer Canadians simply because you're Canadian, which you like to mask as "heart/culture". Now you're back peddling and claiming you shared MY premise about rink size all along. How convenient. If you want to take that as me agreeing with you have at it....

I'll ask my question again. You prefer Canadians over others. I'm interested to know which province you prefer?

I'm arguing about language because you've consistently changed your argument since we began. First it was Michigan guys are paid like high-end players. Now they're simply just overpaid. First it was you prefer Canadians because heart, now it's rink size after I mention that point. If you keep your story straight I won't have to question your language, which I would prefer.

Edited March 22, 2017 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[DickieDunn 2,571]

So you didn't say what you said? Or you're admitting to being xenophobic?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[mackel 675]

6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I partially agreed with your conclusion, and totally disagreed with your premise. I prefer NA players because of familiarity with NA ice. You prefer Canadians simply because you're Canadian, which you like to mask as "heart/culture". Now you're back peddling and claiming you shared MY premise about rink size all along. How convenient. If you want to take that as me agreeing with you have at it....

I'll ask my question again. You prefer Canadians over others. I'm interested to know which province you prefer?

I'm arguing about language because you've consistently changed your argument since we began. First it was Michigan guys are paid like high-end players. Now they're simply just overpaid. First it was you prefer Canadians because heart, now it's rink size after I mention that point. If you keep your story straight I won't have to question your language, which I would prefer.

Generally speaking... rugged players from the west.

I've not changed my argument.... heart and will to win are paramount... I did mention other factors such as culture and environment (within which rink size can be inferred, which you did and went on to say I didn't mention explicitly...)

DK is making 750k less than Dougie Hamilton.  Having looked that up on capfriendly reminded me how many average or mediocre players we have locked up to term and dollars.  Not unique to the Michigan linked players but no discount either....  which is the point I've been making had you been following along and not arguing for the fun of it.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

21 minutes ago, mackel said:

Generally speaking... rugged players from the west.

I've not changed my argument.... heart and will to win are paramount... I did mention other factors such as culture and environment (within which rink size can be inferred, which you did and went on to say I didn't mention explicitly...)

DK is making 750k less than Dougie Hamilton.  Having looked that up on capfriendly reminded me how many average or mediocre players we have locked up to term and dollars.  Not unique to the Michigan linked players but no discount either....  which is the point I've been making had you been following along and not arguing for the fun of it.

"being in an elite competitive enviroment from a young age" = Rink size

If you say so Don Cherry

21 minutes ago, mackel said:

Generally speaking... rugged players from the west.

I've not changed my argument.... heart and will to win are paramount... I did mention other factors such as culture and environment (within which rink size can be inferred, which you did and went on to say I didn't mention explicitly...)

DK is making 750k less than Dougie Hamilton.  Having looked that up on capfriendly reminded me how many average or mediocre players we have locked up to term and dollars.  Not unique to the Michigan linked players but no discount either....  which is the point I've been making had you been following along and not arguing for the fun of it.

What makes these western boys more rugged than guys in other areas? Im curious

Edited March 22, 2017 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[LeftWinger 4,936]

Is somebody out anti-euroing me?

Anyhow, that list is all shaken up from the last one I saw! Suzuki has broken the top 10 and Yamamoto is in the top 20. I was hoping to snag one of these guys in the 2nd. Maybe Tippett drops into the 30's and we can get Hague in the 3rd. 

Imagine this,  we get Vilardi with the #4, Tippett falls to us at #35, then we get Hague with one of the 3rds we have! Nice!

[mackel 675]

46 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

"being in an elite competitive enviroment from a young age" = Rink size

If you say so Don Cherry

What makes these western boys more rugged than guys in other areas? Im curious

 

47 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

"being in an elite competitive enviroment from a young age" = Rink size

If you say so Don Cherry

What makes these western boys more rugged than guys in other areas? Im curious

It's in the water. Duh.

11 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Is somebody out anti-euroing me?

Anyhow, that list is all shaken up from the last one I saw! Suzuki has broken the top 10 and Yamamoto is in the top 20. I was hoping to snag one of these guys in the 2nd. Maybe Tippett drops into the 30's and we can get Hague in the 3rd. 

Imagine this,  we get Vilardi with the #4, Tippett falls to us at #35, then we get Hague with one of the 3rds we have! Nice!

We'd better slow our roll on the wins or our pick may not be as high as we all want it to be.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

20 minutes ago, mackel said:

 

It's in the water. Duh.

We'd better slow our roll on the wins or our pick may not be as high as we all want it to be.  

Thanks, I will be sure to avoid drinking the water on my trip to Vancouver next week 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

It's a factor not the only one, I'm not worried about NHL players jobs.  They make gobs of money to play a game... they don't need defending.

So the xenophobic Don Cherry wannabe dinosaur part is right, but not the jobs part. Gotcha

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, F.Michael said:

Western Canadians?

Sloppy 2nds...

 

 

Might we be better at sticking to Ontario, and further east?

Nothing wrong with good ol ontario boys

[robb himself 143]

Im going to jump in here for a second.

I feel like this argument has gotten blown out of proportion. 

(correct me if I'm wrong) but I feel all mackel meant about drafting some Canadians is that historically Canada has obviously been a power house until recent years (I am a huge fan of the global parity that has surfaced btw) and that is largely in part to hockey being such a huge part of the culture here.

I dont think he meant anything other than he would give the edge to a Canadian if he had to make the choice.

Simple as that.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

17 hours ago, robb himself said:

Im going to jump in here for a second.

I feel like this argument has gotten blown out of proportion. 

(correct me if I'm wrong) but I feel all mackel meant about drafting some Canadians is that historically Canada has obviously been a power house until recent years (I am a huge fan of the global parity that has surfaced btw) and that is largely in part to hockey being such a huge part of the culture here.

I dont think he meant anything other than he would give the edge to a Canadian if he had to make the choice.

Simple as that.

Allow me to complicate things again.

The issue with arguing that Canadians are a better selection because "historically a power house" is that it is an argument based on quantity, and quantity does not equate to quality. Canada still produces the MOST hockey players, so naturally Canadians will comprise most of the league. But if Canada produces say 100 draft quality players a year and only 50 of them turn out to be NHL quality, and Finland produces say 20 and only 10 turn out to be NHL quality, you're still working with the same numbers. It matters not if a player is Canadian or Fin, you have the same chance of selecting an NHL quality player from a place of birth standpoint. Now if someone wanted to pour over the numbers and show that Canadians have a statistically higher chance of becoming a successful draft pick then I'll concede, but I don't want to and I doubt any of you want to do all that work.

So the argument breaks down to well "Canadians just have more heart" and "Canadians just have more will to win" because "hockey orthodoxy" - whatever that is - which is a completely ridiculous premise that is impossible to support. And that, coupled with the fact that he now wants to base his argument on rink size (which is the premise I put forth) but excluded Americans, screams I'm just grasping at reasons to favor Canadians because I'm Canadian. Which is fine, but that's a stance rooted in selecting based on ones own national pride, not unbiasedly selecting the best players available.

[LeftWinger 4,936]

American here, but if you look at International play, WC's, Wjr's, Olympics, who seems to ice the best players all the time? Canada.  When it comes to Olympics, they have enough players to ice two teams that are better than any other team in the tourney.  Behind them are the Americans. Say people are Euro-haters all you want, btw there is no denying that a player can come out of Europe and dominate the NHL, it's been done, but, the fact remains that "more" stars are born in North America. When comes to the quantity of quality players, Canada still is the best country to look to. For every one Euro star, you getting 10 NA stars. It's fact.

Anyhow, with Patrick getting hurt again, do you think it impacts he draft order?

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

What are your guys thoughts on Michael Rasmussen? I've seen a lot of mocks with him going to Detroit and with Detroit playing better than most of the other bottom feeders lately I see us picking 5-10 somewhere which is where I think Rasmussen goes.

[BringBack19 110]

36 minutes ago, Datsyukian-Deke said:

What are your guys thoughts on Michael Rasmussen? I've seen a lot of mocks with him going to Detroit and with Detroit playing better than most of the other bottom feeders lately I see us picking 5-10 somewhere which is where I think Rasmussen goes.

If we are picking in the 5-10 range he would be a good pickup at a position of need. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

American here, but if you look at International play, WC's, Wjr's, Olympics, who seems to ice the best players all the time? Canada.  When it comes to Olympics, they have enough players to ice two teams that are better than any other team in the tourney.  Behind them are the Americans. Say people are Euro-haters all you want, btw there is no denying that a player can come out of Europe and dominate the NHL, it's been done, but, the fact remains that "more" stars are born in North America. When comes to the quantity of quality players, Canada still is the best country to look to. For every one Euro star, you getting 10 NA stars. It's fact.

Anyhow, with Patrick getting hurt again, do you think it impacts he draft order?

You completely missed the point of my quantity vs quality statement. I came right out and said Canada has and will have the MOST. Im talking about percentages and sample size, not sheer volume. Please read more carefully next time. And I havent called anyone a "euro hater", ive gone out of my way to point out that he excludes Americans from an argument, in which had he included them, would make much more sense.

[LeftWinger 4,936]

3 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You completely missed the point of my quantity vs quality statement. I came right out and said Canada has and will have the MOST. Im talking about percentages and sample size, not sheer volume. Please read more carefully next time. And I havent called anyone a "euro hater", ive gone out of my way to point out that he excludes Americans from an argument, in which had he included them, would make much more sense.

I was just making a couple of statements, nothing I said was directed toward you in any way. But to agree with you, if I'm drafting the best player available, I'm not taking an NA player just because and skipping that best player available. For example, if when we draft and the only player touted top 5 left is say Liljegren, I am not taking Jim Smith just because he is NA. I am taking Liljegren. BUT, IMO if I had a choice of Hicshier and Vilardi, I'd chose Vilardi, but if Hischier was the only top center left, I am not taking Tom Jones because he was born in Western Canada. A Euro can and has dominated the NHL, no question.

[LeftWinger 4,936]

6 hours ago, Datsyukian-Deke said:

What are your guys thoughts on Michael Rasmussen? I've seen a lot of mocks with him going to Detroit and with Detroit playing better than most of the other bottom feeders lately I see us picking 5-10 somewhere which is where I think Rasmussen goes.

One of the major factors for me, if I chose a center is he is going to be on the team next season. We need to draft a player that will be here now.

[LeftWinger 4,936]

I know my two guys have dropped some, but even is Tippett is rank #20, I take him at #10. IF we have #5 or #6 I may reconsider. I know another one of my favorites, Nick Suzuki, is showing at #9 and I may roll the dice on him if I had a #6. But ideally my two main targets are Tippett and Hague. If tippett was still available come #20, I'd try to make a player trade to acquire athat pick and draft him, then even with Hague showing #55 right now, I would take him in the 2nd, especially if we dropped to the 10th pick in each round. So Tippet at #10 and Hague at #41.

My best case sceanrio: Get a top 5 pick, draft Vilardi, if Tippett dropped to #20ish, trade a player to acquire that 1st and draft Tippett, then draft Hague with my Top 5 2nd rounder or if there was another guy we wanted in the early 2nd, I'd try to garner a trade to get another 2nd and get Hague.

[Datsyukian-Deke 722]

12 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

One of the major factors for me, if I chose a center is he is going to be on the team next season. We need to draft a player that will be here now.

There are not a lot, if any, that probably make anyone's team this coming season outside of Patrick, Hischier, and perhaps Vilardi. Even that is suspect. When I hear it's a "weak draft" to me that means no generational players and very few players that are ready to jump into NHL action right away. I think either way we look at it the player we draft sees one more year of amateur hockey before coming to the show unless we get lucky in the lottery.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I know my two guys have dropped some, but even is Tippett is rank #20, I take him at #10. IF we have #5 or #6 I may reconsider. I know another one of my favorites, Nick Suzuki, is showing at #9 and I may roll the dice on him if I had a #6. But ideally my two main targets are Tippett and Hague. If tippett was still available come #20, I'd try to make a player trade to acquire athat pick and draft him, then even with Hague showing #55 right now, I would take him in the 2nd, especially if we dropped to the 10th pick in each round. So Tippet at #10 and Hague at #41.
My best case sceanrio: Get a top 5 pick, draft Vilardi, if Tippett dropped to #20ish, trade a player to acquire that 1st and draft Tippett, then draft Hague with my Top 5 2nd rounder or if there was another guy we wanted in the early 2nd, I'd try to garner a trade to get another 2nd and get Hague.

Taking the 20th ranked player at 10 is a good way to throw away a top 10 pick.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk