Official 2019 Offseason Rebuild Thread

[kipwinger 8,518]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't know how you can consider trading a top 10 pick (9th overall) for another top 10 pick (7th overall) a "significant price"... I'd say there are about 6 forwards ahead of Rasmussen as most "promising young player" in the organization. I wouldn't trade him for just anything, but for a better player (regardless of position or area of need), you bet I would. Hughes wouldn't be my first choice of trade targets, but I think he would be an upgrade over anyone we currently have. You should always be looking to upgrade any way you can, and I think most would agree that Hughes is a better player / prospect than Rasmussen.

Based on what?

Hughes is currently scoring at a slower clip than Zach Werenski did at Michigan his freshman year, but instead of being 6'2, 200 lbs, and a stud defender, he's 5'10, 175 lbs, and is not especially good defensively at all. I venture to guess if you just looked at his performance, size, and deficiencies, and didn't know he was Quinn Hughes you wouldn't be all that impressed.  Which is exactly my point. 

Quinn Hughes may turn out to be a good NHLer, maybe even better than Rasmussen But at this point that's FAR from certain and definitely not a slam dunk.

Edited February 26, 2019 by kipwinger

[kickazz 5,459]

8 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Yeah, extending Howard is a must, and 2-3 years would be ideal, hopefully to a similar (or slightly less) cap hit.

 

Wow dude. Just like 2 years ago you were all about Mrazek and didn't mind if we moved on from Howard. And now you flip and say Howard is a must? YOU'RE SUCH A FICKLE FAN. 

And here I thought you want to keep him because we don't have a consistent goalie in the system and he would be a good option for the interim before the goalies in the minors transition up.

Nope. Just you being a fickly ficklebum. 

Godam LGW.com and all the tickle fickle schmickle.

Edited February 27, 2019 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Based on what?

Hughes is currently scoring at a slower clip than Zach Werenski did at Michigan his freshman year, but instead of being 6'2, 200 lbs, and a stud defender, he's 5'10, 175 lbs, and is not especially good defensively at all. I venture to guess if you just looked at his performance, size, and deficiencies, and didn't know he was Quinn Hughes you wouldn't be all that impressed.  Which is exactly my point. 

Quinn Hughes may turn out to be a good NHLer, maybe even better than Rasmussen But at this point that's FAR from certain and definitely not a slam dunk.

Why do you keep bringing up Quinn Hughes "name" like it's some sort of household name? I don't care if his name was Joe Schmoe, he's a very highly regarded prospect, and for good reason. Based on what? Pronman ranked Hughes number 7 and Rasmussen number 52 in his pre-season rankings, and number 1 in his mid-season rankings. Just one man's opinion I know, but one that most people (including yourself) put a lot of stock in.

Scoring at a slower clip than Werenski? So? Werenski is well on his way to be an elite defenseman. Hughes might not ever be that good (he might be), but he'll likely be a very good defenseman.

No one said this trade would be a slam dunk, but I would make it because I think Hughes will end up being a better player than Rasmussen. 

18 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Wow dude. Just like 2 years ago you were all about Mrazek and didn't mind if we moved on from Howard. And now you flip and say Howard is a must? YOU'RE SUCH A FICKLE FAN. 

And here I thought you want to keep him because we don't have a consistent goalie in the system and he would be a good option for the interim before the goalies in the minors transition up.

Nope. Just you being a fickly ficklebum. 

Godam LGW.com and all the tickle fickle schmickle.

Sarcasm I'm assuming?

[kickazz 5,459]

4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

 

Sarcasm I'm assuming?

duhhhh

[kipwinger 8,518]

37 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Why do you keep bringing up Quinn Hughes "name" like it's some sort of household name? I don't care if his name was Joe Schmoe, he's a very highly regarded prospect, and for good reason. Based on what? Pronman ranked Hughes number 7 and Rasmussen number 52 in his pre-season rankings, and number 1 in his mid-season rankings. Just one man's opinion I know, but one that most people (including yourself) put a lot of stock in.

Scoring at a slower clip than Werenski? So? Werenski is well on his way to be an elite defenseman. Hughes might not ever be that good (he might be), but he'll likely be a very good defenseman.

No one said this trade would be a slam dunk, but I would make it because I think Hughes will end up being a better player than Rasmussen. 

Sarcasm I'm assuming?

Pronman's ranking was made pre-season.  Since then Hughes has been OK in college hockey, and Rasmussen has been OK in the NHL.  But that's not what I asked.  You said Hughes was already is a BETTER PLAYER than Rasmussen.  Care to explain what you've based that assessment on?

The reason I bring up Werenski is because Quinn Hughes is supposed to be an elite offensive defenseman, but he's not having an elite offensive season relative to other elite caliber defensemen in the same situation.  And unlike Werenski he's neither big, nor defensively adept, so if he's not putting up big points he's not really having much of an impact elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, Rasmussen is playing in the hardest league in the world, is getting quality developmental time including on the powerplay (where we hope he's going to be lethal one day), and he definitely looks like a 20+ goal guy going forward.

You're welcome to like whomever you want, but I wish we were both GMs.  I'd gladly take all your decent 19 year old NHL rookies for my decent 19 year old NCAA freshmen. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

Pronman's ranking was made pre-season.  Since then Hughes has been OK in college hockey, and Rasmussen has been OK in the NHL.  But that's not what I asked.  You said Hughes was already is a BETTER PLAYER than Rasmussen.  Care to explain what you've based that assessment on?

The reason I bring up Werenski is because Quinn Hughes is supposed to be an elite offensive defenseman, but he's not having an elite offensive season relative to other elite caliber defensemen in the same situation.  And unlike Werenski he's neither big, nor defensively adept, so if he's not putting up big points he's not really having much of an impact elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, Rasmussen is playing in the hardest league in the world, is getting quality developmental time including on the powerplay (where we hope he's going to be lethal one day), and he definitely looks like a 20+ goal guy going forward.

You're welcome to like whomever you want, but I wish we were both GMs.  I'd gladly take all your decent 19 year old NHL rookies for my decent 19 year old NCAA freshmen. 

No, like I said, he made one pre-season, but has since made another mid-season ranking, which Hughes is who he considers the top prospect across the entire league.

I didn't say he is "already" a better player, although I can see why you would interpret it that way. What I meant is, at the same age, I think Hughes is / was a better prospect, and I do think he will end up being the better player.

You mentioned "slam dunk" earlier. So I assume by your last comment there, you think it's a "slam dunk" that Rasmussen will be the undisputed better player between the two? I disagree. Hope you're right though, because that deal would never happen...

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

I don't care about about rankings. I would just make the trade because

1. Hughes fills a greater team need.

2. All other things being equal, defenseman are more valuable than wingers.

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

Wow dude. Just like 2 years ago you were all about Mrazek and didn't mind if we moved on from Howard. And now you flip and say Howard is a must? YOU'RE SUCH A FICKLE FAN. 

And here I thought you want to keep him because we don't have a consistent goalie in the system and he would be a good option for the interim before the goalies in the minors transition up.

Nope. Just you being a fickly ficklebum. 

Godam LGW.com and all the tickle fickle schmickle.

Nothing gets by me. I am totally on to you.

[kipwinger 8,518]

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No, like I said, he made one pre-season, but has since made another mid-season ranking, which Hughes is who he considers the top prospect across the entire league.

I didn't say he is "already" a better player, although I can see why you would interpret it that way. What I meant is, at the same age, I think Hughes is / was a better prospect, and I do think he will end up being the better player.

You mentioned "slam dunk" earlier. So I assume by your last comment there, you think it's a "slam dunk" that Rasmussen will be the undisputed better player between the two? I disagree. Hope you're right though, because that deal would never happen...

I didn't "interpret" anything any particular way.  You said "most would agree Hughes IS a better player".  You didn't qualify it in any way in your original post.  If that's not what you meant then you should be more precise.  I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them. 

I don't know who will be better in the long run.  I think Rasmussen is definitely better than Hughes now based on that fact that he's having a decent NHL rookie year while Hughes is having a decent freshman year in the NCAA.  Neither of them are even close to their ceilings.  So trading our big winger for an offensive defenseman, especially considering we've got a rookie offensive defenseman who's playing great in the NHL, seems like a bad idea to me because it's so obviously premature. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

30 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I didn't "interpret" anything any particular way.  You said "most would agree Hughes IS a better player".  You didn't qualify it in any way in your original post.  If that's not what you meant then you should be more precise.  I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them. 

I don't know who will be better in the long run.  I think Rasmussen is definitely better than Hughes now based on that fact that he's having a decent NHL rookie year while Hughes is having a decent freshman year in the NCAA.  Neither of them are even close to their ceilings.  So trading our big winger for an offensive defenseman, especially considering we've got a rookie offensive defenseman who's playing great in the NHL, seems like a bad idea to me because it's so obviously premature. 

And the fact that Hughes was drafted a year later, is six months younger, and it generally takes defensemen longer to develop... You're acting as if Rasmussen IS and WILL BE the better player just because he's in the NHL (probably shouldn't be), and Hughes is not... Similar to the Kotkaniemi vs Zadina debate. Some people think Kotkaniemi is and will be the better player, just because he's in the NHL and Zadina, up until this week, was in the AHL. It's dumb. I think most people would agree that Hughes has a higher ceiling and would take him over Rasmussen. You disagree and that's fine.

44 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I don't care about about rankings. I would just make the trade because

1. Hughes fills a greater team need.

2. All other things being equal, defenseman are more valuable than wingers.

Also, this.

[kipwinger 8,518]

10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

And the fact that Hughes was drafted a year later, is six months younger, and it generally takes defensemen longer to develop... You're acting as if Rasmussen IS and WILL BE the better player just because he's in the NHL (probably shouldn't be), and Hughes is not... Similar to the Kotkaniemi vs Zadina debate. Some people think Kotkaniemi is and will be the better player, just because he's in the NHL and Zadina, up until this week, was in the AHL. It's dumb. I think most people would agree that Hughes has a higher ceiling and would take him over Rasmussen. You disagree and that's fine.

Also, this.

 

I've already said multiple times that I'm not sure who "will be" better (I've explicitly said so twice). I've only said who I think IS better and why I think so.  If you're going to make up arguments in order to rebut them then I don't know what  to tell you.  Again, I just wish we were GMs. 

56 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I don't care about about rankings. I would just make the trade because

1. Hughes fills a greater team need.

2. All other things being equal, defenseman are more valuable than wingers.

Nothing gets by me. I am totally on to you.

How does Hughes fill a greater team need?  We already have Filip Hronek, who is exactly like Hughes except that's he's playing better at a higher level.  We literally have nobody in our organization like Rasmussen.  If you think that having a quality net front guy is important, and most people do, then it's hard to conclude that Rasmussen doesn't fill a greater need given what our prospect pool looks like. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[kipwinger 8,518]

8 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Based on what?

Hughes is currently scoring at a slower clip than Zach Werenski did at Michigan his freshman year, but instead of being 6'2, 200 lbs, and a stud defender, he's 5'10, 175 lbs, and is not especially good defensively at all. I venture to guess if you just looked at his performance, size, and deficiencies, and didn't know he was Quinn Hughes you wouldn't be all that impressed.  Which is exactly my point. 

Quinn Hughes may turn out to be a good NHLer, maybe even better than Rasmussen But at this point that's FAR from certain and definitely not a slam dunk.

 

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

I didn't "interpret" anything any particular way.  You said "most would agree Hughes IS a better player".  You didn't qualify it in any way in your original post.  If that's not what you meant then you should be more precise.  I interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them. 

I don't know who will be better in the long run.  I think Rasmussen is definitely better than Hughes now based on that fact that he's having a decent NHL rookie year while Hughes is having a decent freshman year in the NCAA.  Neither of them are even close to their ceilings.  So trading our big winger for an offensive defenseman, especially considering we've got a rookie offensive defenseman who's playing great in the NHL, seems like a bad idea to me because it's so obviously premature. 

 

First you said Hughes "IS a better player/prospect", and then backed off that because it's based on nothing and suggested I misinterpreted you.  Then you claim I'm acting like Rasmussen "IS and WILL BE" better when the bolded above shows I clearly don't think that and clearly said so.  This is just another in a long list of examples where you say something ridiculous and then either completely change your argument or create some phony strawman in order to not seem absurd and arbitrary. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

7 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I've already said multiple times that I'm not sure who "will be" better (I've explicitly said so twice). I've only said who I think IS better and why I think so.  If you're going to make up arguments in order to rebut them then I don't know what  to tell you.  Again, I just wish we were GMs. 

How does Hughes fill a greater team need?  We already have Filip Hronek, who is exactly like Hughes except that's he's playing better at a higher level.  We literally have nobody in our organization like Rasmussen.  If you think that having a quality net front guy is important, and most people do, then it's hard to conclude that Rasmussen doesn't fill a greater need given what our prospect pool looks like. 

And I've already explained why he IS better now... What's your point? Who cares who's better now. It only matters who projects to be better in the long term.

Most would agree that Hughes has the higher ceiling, which is why you should make that trade every time. You wouldn't though because the older forward is playing in the NHL, while the younger defenseman is only play in the NCAA... So short-sighted... And you think you would make a good GM?

Filip Hronek is playing better than Quinn Hughes at a higher level? Well no s***. He's two years older...

We literally have nobody in our organization like Quinn Hughes either. Sure there are players that are similar, just like there are players that are similar to Rasmussen. You've always said that Mantha is a great net-front forward. Now, all of a sudden he's not? What about Bertuzzi. He's better at that role than Rasmussen NOW (because he's older and more experienced)...

8 hours ago, kipwinger said:

First you said Hughes "IS a better player/prospect", and then backed off that because it's based on nothing and suggested I misinterpreted you.  Then you claim I'm acting like Rasmussen "IS and WILL BE" better when the bolded above shows I clearly don't think that and clearly said so.  This is just another in a long list of examples where you say something ridiculous and then either completely change your argument or create some phony strawman in order to not seem absurd and arbitrary. 

No, actually I said "I think Hughes will end up being a better player than Rasmussen. " And then you said that I said "he is already a better player", which I didn't... You did misinterpret what I was saying.

So you "clearly don't think that Rasmussen IS or WILL BE better than Hughes, but you wouldn't make that trade. Got it. Makes so much sense now...

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

Erik brannstrom was the answer and we let him go for some guy cause he’s 6’5 

were gonna regret that decision ... and there’s zero chance the canucks would trade us Quinn hughes for Rasmussen

Edited February 27, 2019 by nyqvististhefuture

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Erik brannstrom was the answer and we let him go for some guy cause he’s 6’5 

were gonna regret that decision ... and there’s zero chance the canucks would trade us Quinn hughes for Rasmussen

Brannstrom is playing in the AHL. He sucks. Rasmussen is playing in the NHL. He's realgud.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

32 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Erik brannstrom was the answer and we let him go for some guy cause he’s 6’5 

were gonna regret that decision ... and there’s zero chance the canucks would trade us Quinn hughes for Rasmussen

Was the question "name me an AHL player from Sweden who has yet to prove jack squat in the NHL and may or may not be a top pair NHL D-man" ? 

26 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Brannstrom is playing in the AHL. He sucks. Rasmussen is playing in the NHL. He's realgud.

Dude, you're liking and quoting NITF now just to spite Kip? You have sold your soul. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by The 91 of Ryans

[kipwinger 8,518]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

And I've already explained why he IS better now... What's your point? Who cares who's better now. It only matters who projects to be better in the long term.

Most would agree that Hughes has the higher ceiling, which is why you should make that trade every time. You wouldn't though because the older forward is playing in the NHL, while the younger defenseman is only play in the NCAA... So short-sighted... And you think you would make a good GM?

Filip Hronek is playing better than Quinn Hughes at a higher level? Well no s***. He's two years older...

We literally have nobody in our organization like Quinn Hughes either. Sure there are players that are similar, just like there are players that are similar to Rasmussen. You've always said that Mantha is a great net-front forward. Now, all of a sudden he's not? What about Bertuzzi. He's better at that role than Rasmussen NOW (because he's older and more experienced)...

No, actually I said "I think Hughes will end up being a better player than Rasmussen. " And then you said that I said "he is already a better player", which I didn't... You did misinterpret what I was saying.

So you "clearly don't think that Rasmussen IS or WILL BE better than Hughes, but you wouldn't make that trade. Got it. Makes so much sense now...

You willingness to obfuscate in order to cover up your dopey preferences is admirable.  I said multiple times I don't know who will be better in the long turn.  Which is why it would be a stupid trade.  Because you don't know what you'd be getting out of Hughes.  I also don't think "most people" would say Hughes has the higher ceiling after his so-so freshman year in the NCAA.  At the very least an honest evaluator would probably conclude that Hughes' NHL projection is up in the air right now, which is EXACTLY why you shouldn't trade someone like Rasmussen for him. 

And yes, you did say Hughes was a better player than Rasmussen.  I've bolded it below.  Stop trying to wiggle out of this.  It's genuinely pathetic.  At the very least stick to your guns, as misguided and cringeworthy as they are. 

I also like how you keep saying "most people think" or "most agree".  Who are these people?  You and Pronman in his preseason rankings?  You say Hughes is a better player/prospect and I keep asking what you're basing that on.  Why not tell us?  Give us a breakdown why Hughes is better based on his play up to this point and not based on more made up crap. 

19 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't know how you can consider trading a top 10 pick (9th overall) for another top 10 pick (7th overall) a "significant price"... I'd say there are about 6 forwards ahead of Rasmussen as most "promising young player" in the organization. I wouldn't trade him for just anything, but for a better player (regardless of position or area of need), you bet I would. Hughes wouldn't be my first choice of trade targets, but I think he would be an upgrade over anyone we currently have. You should always be looking to upgrade any way you can, and I think most would agree that Hughes is a better player / prospect than Rasmussen.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

42 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Brannstrom is playing in the AHL. He sucks. Rasmussen is playing in the NHL. He's realgud.

Cause Rasmussen couldn’t be sent down or he would 

18 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Was the question "name me an AHL player from Sweden who has yet to prove jack squat in the NHL and may or may not be a top pair NHL D-man" ? 

Dude, you're liking and quoting NITF now just to spite Kip? You have sold your soul. 

Nice one dickhead , as opposed to name a 6’5 giant who yet to prove jack squat in the nhl and will most likely be a bottom 6 forward?

 

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

1 minute ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Cause Rasmussen couldn’t be sent down or he would 

And when he was there (small sample size) he looked dominant. So what's your point? 

 

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

1 minute ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

And when he was there (small sample size) he looked dominant. So what's your point? 

 

Ya real dominate wiht his 15 pts 

and your thing should say resurrected dickhead not idiot .... idiot 

[kipwinger 8,518]

Rasmussen absolutely COULD be sent down, to Tri-City, according to the very same rules of Junior eligibility that all other Junior players are governed by.  Wings management decided he was too good for that, was NHL ready, and kept him on the big club instead of sending him back.  This "he couldn't be sent down" crap is just another attempt by the same old crowd to make up fake talking points to justify their own irrational points of view. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You willingness to obfuscate in order to cover up your dopey preferences is admirable.  I said multiple times I don't know who will be better in the long turn.  Which is why it would be a stupid trade.  Because you don't know what you'd be getting out of Hughes.  I also don't think "most people" are would say Hughes has the higher ceiling after watching him struggle in NCAA hockey as much as he did.  At the very least an honest evaluator would probably conclude that Hughes' NHL projection is up in the air right now, which is EXACTLY why you shouldn't trade someone like Rasmussen for him. 

And yes, you did say Hughes was a better player than Rasmussen.  I've bolded it below.  Stop trying to wiggle out of this.  It's genuinely pathetic.  At the very least stick to your guns, as misguided and cringeworthy as they are.

Got it. Never trade for prospects because their NHL projection is up in the air. You never know what you're getting. So many dumb GM's in the NHL making dumb trades... If only they were as smart as kipwinger...

27 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Dude, you're liking and quoting NITF now just to spite Kip? You have sold your soul. 

No, I like anyone's comments that I agree with. I completely agree with this...

58 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

there’s zero chance the canucks would trade us Quinn hughes for Rasmussen

 

[kipwinger 8,518]

6 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Ya real dominate wiht his 15 pts 

and your thing should say resurrected dickhead not idiot .... idiot 

I think he was saying that Rasmussen looked "dominant" when sent down to Grand Rapids for his conditioning stint.  He had two goals in three games.  Hence his reference to small sample size.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Rasmussen absolutely COULD be sent down, to Tri-City, according to the very same rules of Junior eligibility that all other Junior players are governed by.  Wings management decided he was too good for that, was NHL ready, and kept him on the big club instead of sending him back.  This "he couldn't be sent down" crap is just another attempt by the same old crowd to make up fake talking points to justify their own irrational points of view. 

He COULD NOT be sent down to Grand Rapids, which is what he was referring to...

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

11 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Ya real dominate wiht his 15 pts 

and your thing should say resurrected dickhead not idiot .... idiot 

Listen. I know you don't like to read other people's posts. It's hard work. Especially those that are more than a few words in length. But I was talking about his conditioning stint in the AHL. Let me know if you've made it all the way through this one. Say something ignorant or something. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by The 91 of Ryans

[kipwinger 8,518]

Just now, krsmith17 said:

He COULD NOT be sent down to Grand Rapids, which is what he was referring to...

Is being "sent down" only to Grand Rapids now?  He had another year of junior eligibility.  If he was so un-worthy of an NHL roster spot he could have been sent down.  Lots of other players from his draft class still are.