Official 2018 NHL Amateur Entry Draft Discussion Thread

[Dabura 12,207]

8 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If you're Bergevin, and you want Kotkaniemi, are you really going to take him at 3? I think that could be too much of a reach there. It actually makes the most sense for him to trade #3 to Holland for #6 and #30 and still get (can we call him Coke Can?) at #6 without looking like an amateur.

Right. Would probably cost a bit more than #6 + #30/31 (in this hypothetical scenario), but yeah.

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

One thing that confused the hell out of me though... In what world is Zadina the player we so badly need but Svechnikov isn't? I don't get that. Isn't Svech regarded to be the better player at virtually every aspect of the game?

I'd say Svechnikov is widely considered the #2 player in this draft class -- BUT, there's no shortage of people who feel Zadina is the superior player, and it does seem like the people who love him really, really love him. He is, perhaps, the more viscerally exciting player; he gets people's HYPE! juices flowing maybe a little more than Svechnikov does.

I wouldn't say "Svechnikov wouldn't fill an organization hole. Zadina would." But I guess I can see where the Wings are coming from, maybe. Svechnikov is kinda-sorta like Mantha, Pacioretty -- kind of low-key dominant. Zadina? He's more of an Oshie, Pastrnak, Hall. High-octane. Gritty, hard-nosed, aggressive, flashy. Absolutely lethal shooter. Can stickhandle in a phone booth. Surprisingly good two-way game for someone with his sniper skillz.

*shrug*

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I wasn't being selective at all. I was simply listing the top power-play teams and the top producers on those power-plays. Yes, every team has left and right handed players, but not every team has elite left and right handed shooters that they utilize on the power-play. That's my point. We need some elite (top 6) right-handed shooters.

...

I believe a balanced attack on forward and defense plays a huge role in a teams success. You don't think it matters whatsoever. Whatever.

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Agreed. It's not that a team HAS to be balanced to be successful or that well balanced teams WILL BE MORE successful, but when you lack a RH-LH balance on ur roster, its a weakness that has to be compensated for. Some teams have enough overall talent to overcome it, some don't. I just think that more balance = less weakness/compensation.

So in short, going back to the original argument, you both agree (in not so many words) that I was right. It is the quality of the players that is important, not handedness. Past Wings teams were more successful because the players were better, not because more of them were RH (particularly 2008, which didn't even have any more RH shots). That is what I was saying.

Making the leap from that to "You don't think it matters whatsoever" is a strawman. I wouldn't say it's a "huge role", but not because it's wholly insignificant. But rather because even the woefully unbalanced Wings still had 4 RHers in the lineup pretty much every game. It isn't something that needs to be prioritized because it's mostly likely going to be something you end up with regardless. It can be a factor worth considering, just doesn't trump any significant difference in ability. Not altogether different than what you're saying.

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 hours ago, Buppy said:

So in short, going back to the original argument, you both agree (in not so many words) that I was right. It is the quality of the players that is important, not handedness. Past Wings teams were more successful because the players were better, not because more of them were RH (particularly 2008, which didn't even have any more RH shots). That is what I was saying.

Making the leap from that to "You don't think it matters whatsoever" is a strawman. I wouldn't say it's a "huge role", but not because it's wholly insignificant. But rather because even the woefully unbalanced Wings still had 4 RHers in the lineup pretty much every game. It isn't something that needs to be prioritized because it's mostly likely going to be something you end up with regardless. It can be a factor worth considering, just doesn't trump any significant difference in ability. Not altogether different than what you're saying.

Typical Buppy. Even when you're wrong, you have to spin it that you were "right" and we were just agreeing with you all along...

Not a single person has said that handedness matters more than skill. We've all said that overall ability is more important, but handedness should be a factor. How big or small that factor is may differ from fan to fan, scout to scout, team to team. It obviously hasn't been much of a factor for the Wings over the years, but I think it should be a little more of a determining factor. They're more concerned about whether or not each and every player is captain material. I'm not saying that isn't important, I believe it is, just not as important as the Red Wings organization thinks it is.

From the beginning I said that we should not trade any left-handed players for lesser quality right-handed players. And we should not draft any right-handed players over more skilled left-handed players. That indicates that I, and literally everyone that you've been arguing with, value skill over handedness.

This all came about because I prefer Wahlstrom over Kotkaniemi, and Bokk over McLeod. Yeah, it's partly because of handedness, but it's also because they're similarly skilled. It's not like I'm saying I'd rather Kaut over Kotkaniemi or something outlandish. Of course the Red Wings scouts know more than any of us, and they have their own criteria, so if there are any red flags on any of these right-handed players, I'll understand them passing on them. I'm assuming that's what happened with Vilardi last year, although I still think he'll end up being better than Rasmussen (really hope I'm wrong).

I really want Merkley to fall to us with our 2nd or 3rd pick, but I know there's no way the Wings will take him because of the "attitude issues" (red flag). I'm fine with that, but not every single player needs to be captain material either. I think, based on everything I've seen and read on these players, that Wahlstrom and Bokk are supremely talented players, and I'd love to add both, it's just a huge bonus that they're right-handed.

One final point I'd like to make, that you'll probably disagree with... If Stamkos is a left-handed shot, do you think Tampa's power-play is as successful at 24%? I don't. Of course it's probably still going to remain above league average, because they have some of the best players in the world (Stamkos, Kucherov and Hedman) on that unit, but I think it drops by at least a couple percent, having three left-handed triggermen. If you can't see the benefit of having that right-handed shot setting up on the left faceoff dot, I don't know what else to say. Agree to disagree I guess...

[Buppy 1,720]

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Typical Buppy. Even when you're wrong, you have to spin it that you were "right" and we were just agreeing with you all along...

Not a single person has said that handedness matters more than skill. We've all said that overall ability is more important, but handedness should be a factor. How big or small that factor is may differ from fan to fan, scout to scout, team to team. It obviously hasn't been much of a factor for the Wings over the years, but I think it should be a little more of a determining factor. They're more concerned about whether or not each and every player is captain material. I'm not saying that isn't important, I believe it is, just not as important as the Red Wings organization thinks it is.

From the beginning I said that we should not trade any left-handed players for lesser quality right-handed players. And we should not draft any right-handed players over more skilled left-handed players. That indicates that I, and literally everyone that you've been arguing with, value skill over handedness.

This all came about because I prefer Wahlstrom over Kotkaniemi, and Bokk over McLeod. Yeah, it's partly because of handedness, but it's also because they're similarly skilled. It's not like I'm saying I'd rather Kaut over Kotkaniemi or something outlandish. Of course the Red Wings scouts know more than any of us, and they have their own criteria, so if there are any red flags on any of these right-handed players, I'll understand them passing on them. I'm assuming that's what happened with Vilardi last year, although I still think he'll end up being better than Rasmussen (really hope I'm wrong).

I really want Merkley to fall to us with our 2nd or 3rd pick, but I know there's no way the Wings will take him because of the "attitude issues" (red flag). I'm fine with that, but not every single player needs to be captain material either. I think, based on everything I've seen and read on these players, that Wahlstrom and Bokk are supremely talented players, and I'd love to add both, it's just a huge bonus that they're right-handed.

One final point I'd like to make, that you'll probably disagree with... If Stamkos is a left-handed shot, do you think Tampa's power-play is as successful at 24%? I don't. Of course it's probably still going to remain above league average, because they have some of the best players in the world (Stamkos, Kucherov and Hedman) on that unit, but I think it drops by at least a couple percent, having three left-handed triggermen. If you can't see the benefit of having that right-handed shot setting up on the left faceoff dot, I don't know what else to say. Agree to disagree I guess...

Hate to shatter your illusion of a KR-centric universe, but this started when Neo made a comment about past Wings teams. Nothing to do with you or your preferences at all. I pointed out that one of his examples (2008) was wrong, and the rest meaningless. You then jumped in with "it's not the be all...", which isn't so different from "it's not something that makes a team successful". But apparently only you are allowed to say handedness isn't everything. 

Yeah, TBs PP would still be good with a LH Stamkos, and you'd still list them as "balanced" because they have Point and Johnson. Wings PP would still suck with a RH Nyquist, and you'd still say they were unbalanced because he's not a good enough "triggerman".

Of the last 27 draft picks (excluding goalies), 9 have been RH. Pretty much exactly what you'd expect, given that around 1/3rd of players are RH. I think we've had more RH UFA signings than LH. As you say many of the top prospects this year are RH shots. It's not something that needs priority, because it just happens naturally. Yes, we've been unlucky, but we don't need to change anything. We're already doing what you say we should. The only way we could prioritize it any more is if we did start valuing handedness more than ability.

[krsmith17 7,191]

50 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Hate to shatter your illusion of a KR-centric universe, but this started when Neo made a comment about past Wings teams. Nothing to do with you or your preferences at all. I pointed out that one of his examples (2008) was wrong, and the rest meaningless. You then jumped in with "it's not the be all...", which isn't so different from "it's not something that makes a team successful". But apparently only you are allowed to say handedness isn't everything. 

Yeah, TBs PP would still be good with a LH Stamkos, and you'd still list them as "balanced" because they have Point and Johnson. Wings PP would still suck with a RH Nyquist, and you'd still say they were unbalanced because he's not a good enough "triggerman".

Of the last 27 draft picks (excluding goalies), 9 have been RH. Pretty much exactly what you'd expect, given that around 1/3rd of players are RH. I think we've had more RH UFA signings than LH. As you say many of the top prospects this year are RH shots. It's not something that needs priority, because it just happens naturally. Yes, we've been unlucky, but we don't need to change anything. We're already doing what you say we should. The only way we could prioritize it any more is if we did start valuing handedness more than ability.

"Illusion of a KR-centric universe"? LOL. That's cute coming from you.

Yes, Tampa's power-play would still be good. I already said that. Would they be as good though? That's the question I was asking that you're not surprisingly avoiding...

No, I wouldn't still list them as balanced because as I said, I was looking at the biggest power-play producers from each of the top power-play teams. Johnson and Point aren't close to the top guys in Tampa. You know what though? I bet if we lived in a world where Stamkos was a lefty, Tampa would have one of Johnson or Point on the top unit. Still wouldn't be as good as their current top unit though.

If Nyquist were a righty, I do believe their power-play percentage would increase. It obviously wouldn't jump to tops in the league or anything, but I'd bet anything they'd be marginally better. 1-2% higher would be my bet. Where are you getting this "not a good enough triggerman" bulls*** from? I didn't say Frk wasn't good enough, if that's what you're referring to. I think without Frk, we'd drop from 17.5%, down to 16.5% or lower. I think if Frk were a left-handed shot, he wouldn't be on either power-play unit, and might not even be on the team.

We don't need more Luke Glendening's / Luke Witkowski's / Zach Nastasiuk's, we need more top end right-handed shooters. Players that are actual legit top 6 snipers, not bottom 6 grinders...

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

"Illusion of a KR-centric universe"? LOL. That's cute coming from you.

Yes, Tampa's power-play would still be good. I already said that. Would they be as good though? That's the question I was asking that you're not surprisingly avoiding...

No, I wouldn't still list them as balanced because as I said, I was looking at the biggest power-play producers from each of the top power-play teams. Johnson and Point aren't close to the top guys in Tampa. You know what though? I bet if we lived in a world where Stamkos was a lefty, Tampa would have one of Johnson or Point on the top unit. Still wouldn't be as good as their current top unit though.

If Nyquist were a righty, I do believe their power-play percentage would increase. It obviously wouldn't jump to tops in the league or anything, but I'd bet anything they'd be marginally better. 1-2% higher would be my bet. Where are you getting this "not a good enough triggerman" bulls*** from? I didn't say Frk wasn't good enough, if that's what you're referring to. I think without Frk, we'd drop from 17.5%, down to 16.5% or lower. I think if Frk were a left-handed shot, he wouldn't be on either power-play unit, and might not even be on the team.

We don't need more Luke Glendening's / Luke Witkowski's / Zach Nastasiuk's, we need more top end right-handed shooters. Players that are actual legit top 6 snipers, not bottom 6 grinders...

Yes, as good. Didn't realize "yeah" wouldn't be specific enough for you, sorry. 

Would it be the exact same %? That's a stupid question, normal variance is more than 1-2% anyway. TB was 22.8% last year with Stamkos out for 80% of the year. 18.8 and 15.8 the years before that. 

You are saying Frk isn't good enough. Every time you say we don't have any balance, and need an elite RH shot, that's what it means. He's not good enough to produce the effect you're trying to say "balance" has. And if you want to say he is good enough, then why did you call him out as just a bottom 6 and why does our PP still suck?

Frk played 68 games last year. The PP in those games was 29-187. 15.5%. 12-47 in the 14 games he missed. 25.5%. Even if you discount the one good game where we went 4-6, it's still 19.5% without him. You might want to do some rethinking. Replace RH Frk with a LH version of Stamkos it would do far more for our PP and team than replacing any of our LH with RH versions of themselves.

The good teams aren't better because they're more L/R balanced. In most cases they aren't any more balanced, and there are examples where good teams are actually less so. They're better because they have better players. You're conflating the two; reasoning that the bad teams would be better with better RH players. That's true enough, but it's also true they'd be better with better LH players. It's the "better player" part that's important. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Yes, as good. Didn't realize "yeah" wouldn't be specific enough for you, sorry. 

Would it be the exact same %? That's a stupid question, normal variance is more than 1-2% anyway. TB was 22.8% last year with Stamkos out for 80% of the year. 18.8 and 15.8 the years before that. 

You are saying Frk isn't good enough. Every time you say we don't have any balance, and need an elite RH shot, that's what it means. He's not good enough to produce the effect you're trying to say "balance" has. And if you want to say he is good enough, then why did you call him out as just a bottom 6 and why does our PP still suck?

Frk played 68 games last year. The PP in those games was 29-187. 15.5%. 12-47 in the 14 games he missed. 25.5%. Even if you discount the one good game where we went 4-6, it's still 19.5% without him. You might want to do some rethinking. Replace RH Frk with a LH version of Stamkos it would do far more for our PP and team than replacing any of our LH with RH versions of themselves.

The good teams aren't better because they're more L/R balanced. In most cases they aren't any more balanced, and there are examples where good teams are actually less so. They're better because they have better players. You're conflating the two; reasoning that the bad teams would be better with better RH players. That's true enough, but it's also true they'd be better with better LH players. It's the "better player" part that's important. 

You said "Yeah, TBs PP would still be good with a LH Stamkos". Nowhere did you say anything about it being "as good". But whatever.

I never said anything about it being "the exact same", so that's your "stupid question", not mine. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

I'm not talking about variance from year to year, I'm talking about last year specifically. I believe that if Stamkos were a left-handed shot, with the exact same setup, that power-play isn't near as effective. You want to talk about past years? Okay, I think it would have been slightly less effective in each of the previous years as well.

Frk is good enough to make a positive impact on the power-play. He isn't good enough to make the same level of impact as an elite player would make. He is a bottom 6 player. Why is this so difficult for you to follow?

Now you're talking about replacing Frk with a left-handed version of Stamkos? How many f***ing times do I need to repeat myself? Skill level matters! Frk isn't even in the same stratosphere as Stamkos.

It's kind of crazy that you don't think having a right / left balance makes any difference whatsoever. You said that was a strawman before How so? You're clearly saying that handedness has no effect on scoring. Otherwise, why the f*** are you still arguing the point? Or do you even understand the point?

Here it is one last time... Skill is the most important variable when evaluating individual players. But when you're building a team, handedness should play a part in that. No different than age, size, position, etc.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

The inscription reads:

“Give me your left-hand shooters, your off-handed, your huddled masses yearning to play on the wrong side of the PP.”

Edited June 6, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The inscription reads:

“Give me your off-handed, your left-hand shooters, your huddled masses yearning to play on the wrong side of the powerplay.”

Emma Lazarus would be proud.

21 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Some notable rankings...

He has Kotkaniemi at 5. Bouchard at 9 (behind Hughes and Dobson). Wahlstrom dropping to 10. Wilde, Thomas, and Dellandrea ranking from 16-18, three players I'd like to trade up for. Veleno, Bokk, Miller and Samuelsson ranking from 28-33, all interesting options with our picks 30, 33 and 36. Kaut at 47, a player I think could be a steal that late...

So weird that all of the non-Dahlin D dropped out of the top 5 and its all forwards now.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

I'm changing my vote to Tkachuk

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

You said "Yeah, TBs PP would still be good with a LH Stamkos". Nowhere did you say anything about it being "as good". But whatever.

I never said anything about it being "the exact same", so that's your "stupid question", not mine. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

I'm not talking about variance from year to year, I'm talking about last year specifically. I believe that if Stamkos were a left-handed shot, with the exact same setup, that power-play isn't near as effective. You want to talk about past years? Okay, I think it would have been slightly less effective in each of the previous years as well.

Frk is good enough to make a positive impact on the power-play. He isn't good enough to make the same level of impact as an elite player would make. He is a bottom 6 player. Why is this so difficult for you to follow?

Now you're talking about replacing Frk with a left-handed version of Stamkos? How many f***ing times do I need to repeat myself? Skill level matters! Frk isn't even in the same stratosphere as Stamkos.

It's kind of crazy that you don't think having a right / left balance makes any difference whatsoever. You said that was a strawman before How so? You're clearly saying that handedness has no effect on scoring. Otherwise, why the f*** are you still arguing the point? Or do you even understand the point?

Here it is one last time... Skill is the most important variable when evaluating individual players. But when you're building a team, handedness should play a part in that. No different than age, size, position, etc.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nhl-draft/insider/post?id=143

https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/03/04/quantifying-the-importance-of-handedness/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/righty-lefty-don-shooting-nhl-puck-article-1.2655568

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/sports/hockey/setting-a-hockey-teams-direction-left-and-right.html

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 6/4/2018 at 9:43 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Interestingly enough, if you look over the Cup winning rosters, you'll see a well balanced F and D group.

97 and 98 you had Brown, McCarty, LaPointe, Knuble, and Dandenault on the RW  (Shanny and Maltby played the off-wing) and you had Vladdy (97), Mironov (98), Murphy, Ward, and Pushor on D.

2002 you had only Hull and McCarty listed as RW, but you still had Shanny, Maltby, Yzerman, Jason Williams, and Dandenault who could be slotted in there. On D, you had only Chelios and Olausson, but you still had Dandenault, and Krupp was signed that year too.

In 2008, you had only Downey, McCarty, Samuelsson, and Maltby at F and Rafalski and Chelios on D, but that's still more righties than we have now.

So yeah, this team has had more success with a more balanced RH to LH roster.

1. True statement. Those teams were more balanced RH-LH than the team is now. 

2. Downey + McCarty + Samuelsson + Maltby + Rafalski + Chelios = 6 RH.

Frk + Glendening + Witkowski + Green + Jensen = 5 RH. 6 > 5. My statement was correct.

3. Again, this is a true statement. One can argue the importance that handedness had to do with it, but that doesn't  make what I said "wrong".

I was simply making an observation and stating that observation. Nowhere did I say that we had more success BECAUSE we had a more balanced right to left ratio during those seasons.

FACT: Only 35% of NHLers are RH, yet 15 of the top 25 NHL scorers of all time (60%) were right handed. 

FACT: 7 of the top 10 scorers (70%) among Dmen in 2018 were righties, including the top 3. 6 of the top 12 forwards in scoring were RH (50%) in 2018.

You can argue that this is all coincidence if you want to, but I disagree.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm changing my vote to Tkachuk

Are you really, or are you goofin? I was a little leery of Tkachuk after the last time I looked into him, but maybe you know something I don't.

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

24 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

1. True statement. Those teams were more balanced RH-LH than the team is now. 

2. Downey + McCarty + Samuelsson + Maltby + Rafalski + Chelios = 6 RH.

Frk + Glendening + Witkowski + Green + Jensen = 5 RH. 6 > 5. My statement was correct.

3. Again, this is a true statement. One can argue the importance that handedness had to do with it, but that doesn't  make what I said "wrong".

I was simply making an observation and stating that observation. Nowhere did I say that we had more success BECAUSE we had a more balanced right to left ratio during those seasons.

FACT: Only 35% of NHLers are RH, yet 15 of the top 25 NHL scorers of all time (60%) were right handed. 

FACT: 7 of the top 10 scorers (70%) among Dmen in 2018 were righties, including the top 3. 6 of the top 12 forwards in scoring were RH (50%) in 2018.

You can argue that this is all coincidence if you want to, but I disagree.

 

 

Chuck Norris based funnies never get old and make for compelling argument punctuation, +1 to you sir.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, Wheelchairsuperhero said:

Are you really, or are you goofin? I was a little leery of Tkachuk after the last time I looked into him, but maybe you know something I don't.

Not goofin, but I'm also not as serious about the draft as most people. Matt Tkachuk is my favorite non-Wing at the moment, so I figure hell lets take Brady. I hear he's just as nasty if not nastier than Matt. Whats got you down on him?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

If this punk is available at #6 - I'd certainly welcome him with open arms.

His older brother is easily the most exciting player to watch that I've seen in the last few seasons. I knew you'd appreciate good entertainment.

If he's got half the same attitude I want it. Matt repeatedly targeted Doughty even after big scrums.

The cojones are with the Tkachuk boys

Edited June 7, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Buppy 1,720]

41 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You said "Yeah, TBs PP would still be good with a LH Stamkos". Nowhere did you say anything about it being "as good". But whatever.

I never said anything about it being "the exact same", so that's your "stupid question", not mine. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

I'm not talking about variance from year to year, I'm talking about last year specifically. I believe that if Stamkos were a left-handed shot, with the exact same setup, that power-play isn't near as effective. You want to talk about past years? Okay, I think it would have been slightly less effective in each of the previous years as well.

Frk is good enough to make a positive impact on the power-play. He isn't good enough to make the same level of impact as an elite player would make. He is a bottom 6 player. Why is this so difficult for you to follow?

Now you're talking about replacing Frk with a left-handed version of Stamkos? How many f***ing times do I need to repeat myself? Skill level matters! Frk isn't even in the same stratosphere as Stamkos.

It's kind of crazy that you don't think having a right / left balance makes any difference whatsoever. You said that was a strawman before How so? You're clearly saying that handedness has no effect on scoring. Otherwise, why the f*** are you still arguing the point? Or do you even understand the point?

Here it is one last time... Skill is the most important variable when evaluating individual players. But when you're building a team, handedness should play a part in that. No different than age, size, position, etc.

Well...

11 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

.... do you think Tampa's power-play is as successful at 24%? I don't. ... but I think it drops by at least a couple percent, ...

Those words were already in your mouth. I tried being general and you didn't like it, now you want to cry that I was too specific. So yeah, whatever.

I said several posts back that you agreed with me, and you lol'd. Now you're agreeing that we agree? Glad you caught up. We both agree that handedness does not make a team successful. I'm sure you'll disagree.

Your dichotomy is nicely illustrated in the bolded quotes above. "Isn't near" or "slightly less"; which is it? In one breath you'll agree that "skill level matters", but in the next you'll argue that handedness is what's separating the good teams from the bad. That's what's so hard to follow.

I'm not saying it "has no effect", what I'm saying is we already have RH shooters. As do all the other bad teams. It's not that Frk and Jensen aren't right-enough-handed, it's that they suck. As evidenced by 2008, even the low number of RH shots isn't much of a problem. Drop the pretense. We're not talking about lineup of exclusively LH shots. Your argument is one of quality. There is no dynamic specific to handedness that our current RH players couldn't benefit from. We would not be meaningfully better with 3 more s***ty RHers, nor would 3 good RHers be meaningfully better than 3 good LHers, all else staying the same.

Handedness can play a part in evaluating someone, as I said a long way back. It doesn't really need to be a priority, since even if you never even look at it you're likely to get a decent mix. But my question is if we're already drafting and signing RH players, and we shouldn't prioritize handedness over skill, what more do you expect? 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

As usual - I'm pretty damn redundant...While listening to Sirius NHL Network...

It was mentioned how the Tkachuk boys like to play on that fine line like Marchand...Apparently they like to chat, and share notes about what sets off what opponent...As in these boys relish the opportunity to pi$$ off every guy they cross paths with.

Who wouldn't want a guy that makes a big hit (borderline dirty), and then score the winning goal several seconds later?

These boys have that douchy/cocky smirk to boot...Sumthin I'd love to see on the Wings roster.

The Tkachuk gene alone makes him more valuable than most players. Keith literally bred a family of mother f***ers. I want in on that.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

19 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The Tkachuk gene alone makes him more valuable than most players. Keith literally bred a family of mother f***ers. I want in on that.

Did he also bread a family of tubbies too though? How fat are Matt and Brady going to be when they’re 2-3 years into their 8 year deals?

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Not goofin, but I'm also not as serious about the draft as most people. Matt Tkachuk is my favorite non-Wing at the moment, so I figure hell lets take Brady. I hear he's just as nasty if not nastier than Matt. Whats got you down on him?

I feel you. It was some article I read that was just speculation about whether or not he'd be able to put up points at the NHL level, so admittedly I'm not really down on him, as I haven't looked into him myself as much as some of the other kids. I actually wouldn't be upset if we got him because, like you, I dig Matthew and would love the Wings to get a guy like that.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

30 minutes ago, Wheelchairsuperhero said:

I feel you. It was some article I read that was just speculation about whether or not he'd be able to put up points at the NHL level, so admittedly I'm not really down on him, as I haven't looked into him myself as much as some of the other kids. I actually wouldn't be upset if we got him because, like you, I dig Matthew and would love the Wings to get a guy like that.

I don't like anyone who has letters in their name that they don't pronounce. They can't be trusted.

On 6/5/2018 at 5:51 AM, LeftWinger said:

In a heart there are four chambers, in my life I was blessed with four individuals that filled those chambers with life and love, today I lost one. I will be taking a break from things for a while. Stay awesome my friends.

[amato 3,210]

I would love for us to get Tkachuk but I don’t think he’ll still be there. High upside power forward types are a rare breed. If he’s there, I’d be a little bummed if we don’t draft him. 

I’ve seen something about how the rangers might want to move up to draft Wahlstrom. If he’s still there and that’s the case, I’d gladly trade them the 6th for 9 & 26. I feel like at least one of the four defensemen that have been thoroughly discussed will still be available at 9 and getting one of them plus adding a third 1st round pick would be too good to pass up. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

Well...

Those words were already in your mouth. I tried being general and you didn't like it, now you want to cry that I was too specific. So yeah, whatever.

I said several posts back that you agreed with me, and you lol'd. Now you're agreeing that we agree? Glad you caught up. We both agree that handedness does not make a team successful. I'm sure you'll disagree.

Your dichotomy is nicely illustrated in the bolded quotes above. "Isn't near" or "slightly less"; which is it? In one breath you'll agree that "skill level matters", but in the next you'll argue that handedness is what's separating the good teams from the bad. That's what's so hard to follow.

I'm not saying it "has no effect", what I'm saying is we already have RH shooters. As do all the other bad teams. It's not that Frk and Jensen aren't right-enough-handed, it's that they suck. As evidenced by 2008, even the low number of RH shots isn't much of a problem. Drop the pretense. We're not talking about lineup of exclusively LH shots. Your argument is one of quality. There is no dynamic specific to handedness that our current RH players couldn't benefit from. We would not be meaningfully better with 3 more s***ty RHers, nor would 3 good RHers be meaningfully better than 3 good LHers, all else staying the same.

Handedness can play a part in evaluating someone, as I said a long way back. It doesn't really need to be a priority, since even if you never even look at it you're likely to get a decent mix. But my question is if we're already drafting and signing RH players, and we shouldn't prioritize handedness over skill, what more do you expect? 

"cry that you're being too specific"? What the f*** are you talking about? You're not even making sense... When did I agree that we agreed? I didn't. I said "agree to disagree" because that's the only way we'll get out of this dumbass debate...

Obviously balance of left / right shooters alone doesn't make a team successful, but it definitely helps. I know that's very difficult for you to grasp.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never once said that handedness is what is separating the good teams from the bad. Tampa and Washington would still be good if Stamkos and Ovechkin were left-handed, but there power-plays wouldn't be as lethal, with a completely different setup. If you disagree with that, just say so, and we can be done with this...

We already have right-handed shooters do we? LOL. We don't have a single top 6 forward that shoots right. We might not even have one in our top 9 next year. And we might not have a top 4 defenseman that shoots right either. We have Glendening, Witkowski and maybe Frk, and Jensen and maybe Green, and Hronek (doubtful) going into next season.

No s*** it's about having quality right-handed shots. That's been my argument from the beginning. Are you really that dense?

For a team full of left-handed shooters, yes we would benefit by adding a couple high end right-handed shooters. To say otherwise, is saying handedness "doesn't matter whatsoever". Is that what you're saying? No, of course not...

What more do I expect? I expect us to add some "high end" right handed shots, and no, bottom 6 grinders don't count.

This is by far the dumbest debate I've ever had. The fact that you don't see how teams (power-plays in particular) can benefit from having one-time options all over the ice, is astounding. Teams that can move the puck fluently on the power-play, do so because they rarely have to take passes on their backhand. There's a reason our power-play looks so slow. Skill plays a part for sure, but it also has to do with all the left-handed shots, causing us to filter everything from one side of the ice.

Let's say our future number one power-play is Larkin in the middle, Mantha on the right side, Rasmussen as the net-front, Cholowski as the quarterback, and one of two players somehow with the exact same skill set, same hockey IQ, same speed, same passing ability, and same shot. The only difference is one shoots left, and one shoots right. Which one do you choose to play the left side of the ice? This is such as easy question, but you will somehow turn it into something completely out to lunch, or avoid it altogether...

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

30 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

"cry that you're being too specific"? What the f*** are you talking about? You're not even making sense... When did I agree that we agreed? I didn't. I said "agree to disagree" because that's the only way we'll get out of this dumbass debate...

Obviously balance of left / right shooters alone doesn't make a team successful, but it definitely helps. I know that's very difficult for you to grasp.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never once said that handedness is what is separating the good teams from the bad. Tampa and Washington would still be good if Stamkos and Ovechkin were left-handed, but there power-plays wouldn't be as lethal, with a completely different setup. If you disagree with that, just say so, and we can be done with this...

We already have right-handed shooters do we? LOL. We don't have a single top 6 forward that shoots right. We might not even have one in our top 9 next year. And we might not have a top 4 defenseman that shoots right either. We have Glendening, Witkowski and maybe Frk, and Jensen and maybe Green, and Hronek (doubtful) going into next season.

No s*** it's about having quality right-handed shots. That's been my argument from the beginning. Are you really that dense?

For a team full of left-handed shooters, yes we would benefit by adding a couple high end right-handed shooters. To say otherwise, is saying handedness "doesn't matter whatsoever". Is that what you're saying? No, of course not...

What more do I expect? I expect us to add some "high end" right handed shots, and no, bottom 6 grinders don't count.

This is by far the dumbest debate I've ever had. The fact that you don't see how teams (power-plays in particular) can benefit from having one-time options all over the ice, is astounding. Teams that can move the puck fluently on the power-play, do so because they rarely have to take passes on their backhand. There's a reason our power-play looks so slow. Skill plays a part for sure, but it also has to do with all the left-handed shots, causing us to filter everything from one side of the ice.

Let's say our future number one power-play is Larkin in the middle, Mantha on the right side, Rasmussen as the net-front, Cholowski as the quarterback, and one of two players somehow with the exact same skill set, same hockey IQ, same speed, same passing ability, and same shot. The only difference is one shoots left, and one shoots right. Which one do you choose to play the left side of the ice? This is such as easy question, but you will somehow turn it into something completely out to lunch, or avoid it altogether...

Easy you pick the guy with no arms that can't skate to play the left side. Bring your goalie up to play the right side, get your center in the CENTER of the net. Your wingers obviously will be wearing wings fashioned out of rat skin. And make sure to send out an alternate for the too many men penalty so that your team doesn't have an unfair advantage for more than 8 seconds. But make sure the 6th guy is the skate sharpener. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

14 hours ago, F.Michael said:

You know things are pretty slow around these parts when w're at each others throats over RH vs LH...

Edited June 8, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie