2019 Draft

[Dabura 12,207]

I'd be lying if I said the recent wins don't sting a little. But that's in the context of the tank, which I consider separate from and entirely secondary to The Big Thing, which is winning. I think it's especially big for a team like ours. This team is increasingly young and the young players have spent this season learning what it takes to win NHL games on a consistent basis.

We can sit in our armchairs and say, "It doesn't really matter; this team isn't going to be especially competitive until it gets some elite talent." And there's some truth to that. But that means nothing to the players and the coaches. They want to win, they hate losing, and they need to figure s*** out or else there's almost no point in adding a player like Jack Hughes or Kaapo Kakko or Alexis Lafrenière. You can buy the best seeds money can buy, but if you're a s*** gardener with s*** soil, you're likely going to produce s***.

Larry Murphy said in one of the recent FS-D broadcasts that making the leap from losing tons of one-goal games to winning most of those games is a much more difficult task than most people think. It's like a prospect cutting his teeth in the AHL; just as a prospect has to face adversity and figure out how to grow as a player, a struggling team that seems "so close, yet so far" has to figure out how to get over the hump and become a better team. "Winningness" is learned, and you can't spell "learned" without "earned."

Maybe wins like the New York ones don't really teach anyone anything. But wins like the Vegas one are huge. Huuuuuge. Young players need to learn from experience: if you play smart and "compete like crazy," you can -- and will -- win a lot of hockey games. (The opposite of this would be something akin to learned helplessness.) If your young players internalize this lesson and then you add a Hughes or a Kakko or a Lafrenière to the mix, then you're cooking with gas.

tl;dr Winning is always good, never bad. The tank matters, but I'll never actively root for losses. (Note: I'm not trying to claim a moral high ground and say that other people are actively rooting for losses and are therefore stupid. I think we all want the same things, more or less.)

[krsmith17 7,191]

I just want to get back to the point where if we get scored on, I curse and swear at my TV, if we lose a game, it ruins my entire night, and if we miss the playoffs, I'm depressed for about 3 weeks... Is that too much to ask?

[Dabura 12,207]

46 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I just want to get back to the point where if we get scored on, I curse and swear at my TV, if we lose a game, it ruins my entire night, and if we miss the playoffs, I'm depressed for about 3 weeks... Is that too much to ask?

That Vegas game made me realize how much I miss Red Wings playoff hockey. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

20 hours ago, kickazz said:

18% is still higher than any chance we’ve had in 20 something years. Hence the positivity/hope. And realistically we have the best chance out of 29 other teams so, realism too.

Optimism check

Realism check

Pessimism f*** off. 

Actually I think I'm the one being realistic here. 82% is far more realistic than 18.

Anyway, its not being pessimistic to say it. We didnt win the Dahlin sweepstakes last year but got a heck of a good player anyway at 6th.

And we most likely arent getting the 1st overall this year either, which means no Hughes. That doesnt mean we arent still getting really good franchise player anyway.

You dont have to think we're getting Hughes to still be optimistic about the draft.

 

[Dabura 12,207]

22 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Actually I think I'm the one being realistic here. 82% is far more realistic than 18.

And getting a franchise player is far more likely if you finish in the bottom three than if you finish 17th.

If you wanna keep pointing out that we're not likely to get Hughes and that it's possible to get franchise players outside the top three picks, knock yourself out. But you're not really telling anyone anything they don't know.

"I want Hughes or Kakko."
"You're setting yourself up for disappointment."
"Not really. I'm just excited about the possibility."
"The odds of--"
"I know. I still want Hughes or Kakko."
"I'm just saying the odds--"
"I know. I still want Hughes or Kakko."
"I'm just saying it's possible to find franchise p--"
"I know. I still want Hughes or Kakko."
"You're setting yourself up for disappointment."
"Not really. I'm just excited about the possibility."
"So you admit that franchise p--"
"It would be really cool if we could get Hughes or Kakko."
"The odds--"
"It would be really cool if we could get Hughes or Kakko."
"Look, I'm just saying the odds aren't in our favor."
"It would be really cool if we could get Hughes or Kakko."

There, I saved everyone a day's worth of arguing.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Dabura

[xault 272]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I just want to get back to the point where if we get scored on, I curse and swear at my TV, if we lose a game, it ruins my entire night, and if we lose in the 1st round of the playoffs, I'm depressed for about 3 weeks... Is that too much to ask?

I fix it for yea. 

[kipwinger 8,524]

The top 5 to 10 players in this draft seems especially deep to me.  Like, you could legitimately get game changing talent in that range.  And at the end of the day that's what really matters.  I don't tend to get too hung up on the top picks because the odds are so drastically against it.  But as I've said elsewhere, missing out on the next Patrick Kane (Hughes) is a lot easier to stomach if you land the next Nicklas Backstrom (Zegras) or Tyler Seguin (Cozens) three picks later. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

29 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

The top 5 to 10 players in this draft seems especially deep to me.  Like, you could legitimately get game changing talent in that range.  And at the end of the day that's what really matters.  I don't tend to get too hung up on the top picks because the odds are so drastically against it.  But as I've said elsewhere, missing out on the next Patrick Kane (Hughes) is a lot easier to stomach if you land the next Nicklas Backstrom (Zegras) or Tyler Seguin (Cozens) three picks later. 

I agree. However, I think the former may have a better chance in reaching that sort of potential than the latter. But yeah, ya never really know how any of these kids will develop. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th ranked player became the best player of his draft class.

[kipwinger 8,524]

4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I agree. However, I think the former may have a better chance in reaching that sort of potential than the latter. But yeah, ya never really know how any of these kids will develop. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th ranked player became the best player of his draft class.

Yup, happens all the time.  But I'm actually way more interested in what happens at the end of the first round and beginning of the 2nd.  Looking at Craig Button's draft rankings that just dropped this morning and a bunch of big names are falling.  He's got Dach, Krebs, and Newhook all way down the board compared to their early season rankings.  If good players continue to slide, it could make our 2nd round picks a lot more interesting. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

25 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Yup, happens all the time.  But I'm actually way more interested in what happens at the end of the first round and beginning of the 2nd.  Looking at Craig Button's draft rankings that just dropped this morning and a bunch of big names are falling.  He's got Dach, Krebs, and Newhook all way down the board compared to their early season rankings.  If good players continue to slide, it could make our 2nd round picks a lot more interesting. 

I'm all about packaging a couple of our (three) 2nd rounders, to move up into the 1st round. Especially if some of the big names start dropping. Quality > Quantity

We need another huge draft this year. We could potentially have a top 3 pick, a pick in the 32-35 range, and then package the Islander and Sharks 2nd rounders to get another pick in the 20-30 range.

The Rangers have three 1st rounders this year. They could be open to trading one (Winnipeg or Tampa) to pick up another couple picks. The Ducks, Kings, Aves and Sabres also have a couple 1st rounders each.

[kipwinger 8,524]

14 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm all about packaging a couple of our (three) 2nd rounders, to move up into the 1st round. Especially if some of the big names start dropping. Quality > Quantity

We need another huge draft this year. We could potentially have a top 3 pick, a pick in the 32-35 range, and then package the Islander and Sharks 2nd rounders to get another pick in the 20-30 range.

The Rangers have three 1st rounders this year. They could be open to trading one (Winnipeg or Tampa) to pick up another couple picks. The Ducks, Kings, Aves and Sabres also have a couple 1st rounders each.

Kenny's pretty conservative, and I can't think of a single scenario in which he moved up.  I think it's far more likely that he stands pat and takes multiple picks in the 2nd.  I guess I was alluding to the fact that if a bunch of players are rising, then that means that a bunch of players are falling and we might be in a position to scoop one or two of them up in the 2nd.  I'd be blown away if Ken Holland moved up in the draft TBH.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Kenny's pretty conservative, and I can't think of a single scenario in which he moved up.  I think it's far more likely that he stands pat and takes multiple picks in the 2nd.  I guess I was alluding to the fact that if a bunch of players are rising, then that means that a bunch of players are falling and we might be in a position to scoop one or two of them up in the 2nd.  I'd be blown away if Ken Holland moved up in the draft TBH.

No, I definitely don't see Holland moving up, but at this stage of the rebuild, I think he should. We have pretty good depth right now, we just need a couple game breakers. I hope he swings for the fence on some of these picks. No more safe picks. High risk, high reward.

[kipwinger 8,524]

2 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No, I definitely don't see Holland moving up, but at this stage of the rebuild, I think he should. We have pretty good depth right now, we just need a couple game breakers. I hope he swings for the fence on some of these picks. No more safe picks. High risk, high reward.

I mean, there are some scenarios in which I think there's a good opportunity to move up.  Just depends on how the lottery plays out and who we like that the top of the first round.  Say we pick 4th, and New York picks 10th, and we're pretty much equally high on any of Zegras, Turcotte, Cozens, Krebs, Byram, and Dach then we should consider trading back on that pick, along with one of our 2nds, if New York wants to move up early and may be willing to part with a later 1st rounder to do so.  Then just take whichever one of those guys falls to 10th.

Something like Detroit's 4th, and 35th picks for (let's say) New York's 10th and 25th (or whatever it would be).  But that's a ton of "ifs". 

[Dabura 12,207]

Here's the Button rankings that kip referenced:

Craig's List: Hughes leads class heavy on American talent [TSN]

tl;dr

1. Jack Hughes
2. Kaapo Kakko
3. Vasili Podkolzin
4. Trevor Zegras
5. Bowen Byram
6. Dylan Cozens
7. Matthew Boldy
8. Alex Turcotte
9. Alex Kaliyev
10. Cole Caufield

As kip noted, the likes of Dach and Krebs have fallen out of Button's top 10. As kip also noted, this speaks to the depth of this draft class.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's at least half a dozen players who I'd happily take @ 3rd overall, so if I'm picking in the 3-6 range, I might be looking to trade back.

I agree that there's a good chance that at least a couple of high-profile players get Veleno'd. That could make the 2nd round especially interesting.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

I mean, there are some scenarios in which I think there's a good opportunity to move up.  Just depends on how the lottery plays out and who we like that the top of the first round.  Say we pick 4th, and New York picks 10th, and we're pretty much equally high on any of Zegras, Turcotte, Cozens, Krebs, Byram, and Dach then we should consider trading back on that pick, along with one of our 2nds, if New York wants to move up early and may be willing to part with a later 1st rounder to do so.  Then just take whichever one of those guys falls to 10th.

Something like Detroit's 4th, and 35th picks for (let's say) New York's 10th and 25th (or whatever it would be).  But that's a ton of "ifs". 

I hear ya, but if we're dropping back from 4th to 10th, I'd want more than the 25th for our 35th... just sayin'.

[kickazz 5,459]

4 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Actually I think I'm the one being realistic here. 82% is far more realistic than 18.

Anyway, its not being pessimistic to say it. We didnt win the Dahlin sweepstakes last year but got a heck of a good player anyway at 6th.

And we most likely arent getting the 1st overall this year either, which means no Hughes. That doesnt mean we arent still getting really good franchise player anyway.

You dont have to think we're getting Hughes to still be optimistic about the draft.

 

Realistically we have the 2nd or 3rd highest chance of getting Hughes. Which is a higher chance than 29 or so other teams. 

But if I were to be negative about it, I’d say we’re not going to get him. 

However the lottery odds are in our favor, so I’m cautiously optimistic. 

Make sense? Find yourself in one of those 3 sentences. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by kickazz

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Kenny's pretty conservative, and I can't think of a single scenario in which he moved up.  I think it's far more likely that he stands pat and takes multiple picks in the 2nd.  I guess I was alluding to the fact that if a bunch of players are rising, then that means that a bunch of players are falling and we might be in a position to scoop one or two of them up in the 2nd.  I'd be blown away if Ken Holland moved up in the draft TBH.

Good call.  Holland is too dumb to try what Krs is suggesting.

[AtlantaHotWings 988]

2 hours ago, kickazz said:

Realistically we have the 2nd or 3rd highest chance of getting Hughes. Which is a higher chance than 29 or so other teams. 

But if I were to be negative about it, I’d say we’re not going to get him. 

However the lottery odds are in our favor, so I’m cautiously optimistic. 

Make sense? Find yourself in one of those 3 sentences. 

I am searching for myself will let ya know...LOL

I think a lot of success of draft picks also depends on their work ethic and will. Heck Larkin is showing that even a 15th pick can be successful. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

10 hours ago, Dabura said:

And getting a franchise player is far more likely if you finish in the bottom three than if you finish 17th.

If you wanna keep pointing out that we're not likely to get Hughes and that it's possible to get franchise players outside the top three picks, knock yourself out. But you're not really telling anyone anything they don't know.

"I want Hughes or Kakko."
"You're setting yourself up for disappointment."
"Not really. I'm just excited about the possibility."
"The odds of--"
"I know. I still want Hughes or Kakko."
"I'm just saying the odds--"
"I know. I still want Hughes or Kakko."
"I'm just saying it's possible to find franchise p--"
"I know. I still want Hughes or Kakko."
"You're setting yourself up for disappointment."
"Not really. I'm just excited about the possibility."
"So you admit that franchise p--"
"It would be really cool if we could get Hughes or Kakko."
"The odds--"
"It would be really cool if we could get Hughes or Kakko."
"Look, I'm just saying the odds aren't in our favor."
"It would be really cool if we could get Hughes or Kakko."

There, I saved everyone a day's worth of arguing.

No point in arguing. We're getting a really good player in the draft and it most likely won't be Hughes. Nothing to argue here.

[Dabura 12,207]

11 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

No point in arguing. We're getting a really good player in the draft and it most likely won't be Hughes. Nothing to argue here.

COME BACK HERE AND FIGHT ME LIKE A MAN

[kipwinger 8,524]

Can we all at least agree that if we do draft Hughes we're going to call him "Gentleman" Jack Hughes?  Please?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Can we all at least agree that if we do draft Hughes we're going to call him "Gentleman" Jack Hughes?  Please?

That promotes alcohol consumption. There are children on this board. Do you want children drinking high end Tennessee? f*** you

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

On 3/25/2019 at 8:16 PM, Dabura said:

COME BACK HERE AND FIGHT ME LIKE A MAN

I always thought you were a man.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

I always thought you were a man.

He's genderless like me

[xault 272]

I mainly hope we don't get screwed in the lottery and lose position, from where ever we finish. 

The more I hear about Kaapo Kakko the more I as well hope we land the 2nd overall pick. If we get lucky with the 1st overall, I am good with Hughes obviously, but I would be fairly happy with Kakko as well. I honestly don't know which is better. Outside of them two if we don't land the 1st or 2nd pick, I like what I hear about Podkolzin.

I don't know if it was in this thread, but I know someone around here said they think the Wings should start drafting at least 1 goalie every year. I hope they do as well, I don't really care who. Just start stock stockpiling and hope for one to turn out. Spend a 3rd or 4th rounder on the best goalie available for the next 3 seasons and pry I say.