General Rebuild Discussion Thread

[Dabura 12,207]

9 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Definitely.  But that's not the point I'm making.  The point I'm making is that you, and a handful of other people on LGW, get positively moist about every consensus #1 pick every draft year and act like nobody is even close to their skill level.  And then two years down the line, when history shows that they weren't the absolute beasts you made them out to be you've conveniently moved on. 

Remember when everybody around here was drooling endlessly over Dahlin?  Remember how he was the best defensive prospect in modern history?  I do.  EVERYBODY just knew he was on a different level and we'd never seen anything like him right?  And then Quinn Hughes and Cale Maker turned out to be better at the same stages of their careers.  Nobody talked about those two guys the same way, what happened?  I have a theory.  Rasmus Dahlin was never that much better, or better at all, than other top of the draft defenders.  Neither was Jack Hughes. And neither is Alexis Lafreniere. 

Why does this matter?  Because when people drone on about BPA it assumes that there IS a BPA.  And that the differences between players is obvious.  The reality is the differences at the top of the draft are pretty small and even consensus #1 picks are routinely outperformed by guys that nobody ever discusses in the same way.  So if you choice is between player A and player B (assuming both are highly regarded top picks) you should look at your depth chart and fill holes. 

The consensus #1 guy is almost always the safest pick at #1, and for good reason. If you're saying I never entertain the notion that someone taken after 1st overall could be the better NHLer, well, that's a nice straw man, I guess.

"bUt YoU sAiD hUgHeS pLaYs ChEsS aNd KaKkO pLaYs ChEcKeRs!"

I stand by that. I think he sees the game at a level that Kakko doesn't. I believe he processes the game at a level that Kakko doesn't. I believe his natural hockey sense is freakish. I believe he's a pure scorer who has the potential to be one of the top playmakers in the league for years and years to come. I think players who match his profile are more rare and more valuable than players who match Kakko's profile. Larionov "played chess" while a lot of his contemporaries "played checkers."

I would've taken Dahlin 1st overall, but I loved Svechnikov and to this day it kills me that we didn't get him. I would've taken Matthews 1st overall. I would've taken McDavid 1st overall. I would've taken Hischier 1st overall. I'd probably take Lafreniere 1st overall, though I do have some concerns about him. None of this means I think David Pastrnaks aren't a thing. Just a few days ago I said on this very forum that Cale Makar is a great reason why we shouldn't be too disappointed if we pick 3rd or 4th overall.

I get your thing. "If Player A and Player B are basically equal, you choose based on perceived positional need" etc. "I like Stutzle, but if he doesn't project as a center, I like him considerably less." To me, that's a boring, reductive, surface-level way of looking at things. My thing is that I'd ideally like to know enough about the two players to be able to strongly feel that the players are not, in fact, basically equal. I watched Hughes and I watched Kakko; I felt Hughes was the better prospect. I felt -- and still feel -- he has a God-given X factor quality that Kakko lacks.

tl;dr hughes rules kakko drools

[kipwinger 8,521]

1 minute ago, F.Michael said:

You had me at 'moist'...

On a more serious note...Our luck would be to draft Lefreniere, and he becomes Alex Daigle part deux.

I'd be thrilled if we drafted Lafreniere.  But given the choice between him and the center who's basically just as good I'd take the center, because we need a center more. 

1 minute ago, Dabura said:

The consensus #1 guy is almost always the safest pick at #1, and for good reason. If you're saying I never entertain the notion that someone taken after 1st overall could be the better NHLer, well, that's a nice straw man, I guess.

"bUt YoU sAiD hUgHeS pLaYs ChEsS aNd KaKkO pLaYs ChEcKeRs!"

I stand by that. I think he sees the game at a level that Kakko doesn't. I believe he processes the game at a level that Kakko doesn't. I believe his natural hockey sense is freakish. I believe he's a pure scorer who has the potential to be one of the top playmakers in the league for years and years to come. I think players who match his profile are more rare and more valuable than players who match Kakko's profile. Larionov "played chess" while a lot of his contemporaries "played checkers."

I would've taken Dahlin 1st overall, but I loved Svechnikov and to this day it kills me that we didn't get him. I would've taken Matthews 1st overall. I would've taken McDavid 1st overall. I would've taken Hischier 1st overall. I'd probably take Lafreniere 1st overall, though I do have some concerns about him. None of this means I think David Pastrnaks aren't a thing. Just a few days ago I said on this very forum that Cale Makar is a great reason why we shouldn't be too disappointed if we pick 3rd or 4th overall.

I get your thing. "If Player A and Player B are basically equal, you choose based on perceived positional need" etc. "I like Stutzle, but if he doesn't project as a center, I like him considerably less." To me, that's a boring, reductive, surface-level way of looking at things. My thing is that I'd ideally like to know enough about the two players to be able to strongly feel that the players are not, in fact, basically equal. I watched Hughes and I watched Kakko; I felt Hughes was the better prospect. I felt -- and still feel -- he has a God-given X factor quality that Kakko lacks.

tl;dr hughes rules kakko drools

More boring and surface level than jumping aboard every consensus #1 pick's hype train?  I mean, saying Dahlin, or Hughes, or Lafreniere should be a team's top choice isn't exactly a hot take man. 

[ely s 457]

3 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

My concern with Stutzle is that he is putting up numbers in a league that was once dominated by NHL alum Marcel Goc and Jochen Hecht. Neither of whom where any better than Frans Nielsen caliber forwards.  I am not convinced that he's going to be a Draisaitl level prospect or better. I think he probably ends up closer to the former than the latter.

do you think CHL competition is comparable to the level of the DEL? to score at a .92 ppg rate at the age of 17 in a man´s league is not an easy thing to do and he already lives the life of a professional.

[F.Michael 4,590]

2 minutes ago, ely s said:

do you think CHL competition is comparable to the level of the DEL? to score at a .92 ppg rate at the age of 17 in a man´s league is not an easy thing to do and he already lives the life of a professional.

I could see Grand Master Y taking him if the Wings are not in the top 3 after the draft lottery.

[Dabura 12,207]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

More boring and surface level than jumping aboard every consensus #1 pick's hype train?  I mean, saying Dahlin, or Hughes, or Lafreniere should be a team's top choice isn't exactly a hot take man. 

The Red Wings suck and have sucked for a few years now. I'm a HYPE! junkie, these days more than ever. You bet your ass I'm gonna get excited about consensus 1st overall guys, especially if they don't give me a reason to not get excited about them.

I really like what I've seen of Stutzle, but I'm not going to go crazy for him unless the lotto draw places us outside the top two. (Though, honestly, he might be my pick at #2.) I was aware of and keen on Zegras, but I didn't go all in on him until I knew we weren't getting Hughes or Kakko.

[kipwinger 8,521]

18 minutes ago, Dabura said:

The Red Wings suck and have sucked for a few years now. I'm a HYPE! junkie, these days more than ever. You bet your ass I'm gonna get excited about consensus 1st overall guys, especially if they don't give me a reason to not get excited about them.

I really like what I've seen of Stutzle, but I'm not going to go crazy for him unless the lotto draw places us outside the top two. (Though, honestly, he might be my pick at #2.) I was aware of and keen on Zegras, but I didn't go all in on him until I knew we weren't getting Hughes or Kakko.

That's where you keeping missing my point.  I don't think you shouldn't be excited about a prospect of Dahlin, or Hughes, or Lafreniere's caliber.  I'm saying that there are MORE prospects of that same caliber in just about every draft, you just don't see it because your opinion of the top guys is a product of their frontrunner status and not the other way around.  Again, if Byfield (for example) was 10 months older (as Lafreniere is) then we're probably not even having this discussion. 

As far as the "chess vs. checkers" or "X-factor" thing from your last post, I basically think this is another form of confirmation bias that tons of people have.  They think flashier guys are better by default.  If Jack Hughes has an X-factor it sure isn't helping him too much right now.  Larionov is a Hall of Famer with an X-factor, but he wasn't much (or any) better than any of his less skilled hall of fame peers.  Datsyuk had the "it" factor over Zetterberg but they had nearly identical PPG rates for most of their careers until Zetterberg blew out his back.  Hell, Filip Zadina is a much more dynamic offensive player than Brady Tkachuk but it doesn't seem to be making any difference on the score sheet.

I think the thing that fans get wrong (myself included) is that we tend to look at drafting as a sort of comparison between junior level players at a moment in time (draft day) when the reality is that how good you are on draft day matters way less than how good you'll be at your peak.  Who cares who the best player is right now? It's about who's going to have the better career, and to figure that out you have to factor in things like age, league, genetics, position, etc., and once you do that you might realize that someone who's a hair behind now may end up being WAY more valuable later.

Edited December 13, 2019 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

That's where you keeping missing my point.  I don't think you shouldn't be excited about a prospect of Dahlin, or Hughes, or Lafreniere's caliber.  I'm saying that there are MORE prospects of that same caliber in just about every draft, you just don't see it because your opinion of the top guys is a product of their frontrunner status and not the other way around.  Again, if Byfield (for example) was 10 months older (as Lafreniere is) then we're probably not even having this discussion. 

As far as the "chess vs. checkers" or "X-factor" thing from your last post, I basically think this is another form of confirmation bias that tons of people have.  They think flashier guys are better by default.  If Jack Hughes has an X-factor it sure isn't helping him too much right now.  Larionov is a Hall of Famer with an X-factor, but he wasn't much (or any) better than any of his less skilled hall of fame peers.  Datsyuk had the "it" factor over Zetterberg but they had nearly identical PPG rates for most of their careers until Zetterberg blew out his back.  Hell, Filip Zadina is a much more dynamic offensive player than Brady Tkachuk but it doesn't seem to be making any difference on the score sheet.

I think the thing that fans get wrong (myself included) is that we tend to look at drafting as a sort of comparison between junior level players at a moment in time (draft day) when the reality is that how good you are on draft day matters way less than how good you'll be at your peak.  Who cares who the best player is right now? It's about who's going to have the better career, and to figure that out you have to factor in things like age, league, genetics, position, etc., and once you do that you might realize that someone who's a hair behind now may end up being WAY more valuable later.

You say "who cares who the best player is right now?", but continue to point out that Kakko is better than Hughes "right now". Everyone (including Dabura) expected Kakko to be more NHL ready out of the gate. That doesn't mean that Hughes won't be the better player long term. Same goes for Tkachuk vs Zadina. Tkachuk was obviously more NHL ready, but don't be surprised if Zadina ends up the better player long term.

Lafreniere is / will be the consensus number one pick next June. Of course media will try to make it seem like Byfield is close, but he won't be. If you really do think they're that close, I question how much you've watched, or even read on Lafreniere. He is going to be a really special player. I'll admit, I haven't watched a ton of him, outside of tournament play, but I'll be watching every WJC game, and both players should be on full display. Lafreniere will be the top line left wing, and Byfield will likely be the number two center. Looking forward to it. Either way, I just hope we luck out and get a top two pick. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Definitely.  But that's not the point I'm making.  The point I'm making is that you, and a handful of other people on LGW, get positively moist about every consensus #1 pick every draft year and act like nobody is even close to their skill level.  And then two years down the line, when history shows that they weren't the absolute beasts you made them out to be you've conveniently moved on. 

Remember when everybody around here was drooling endlessly over Dahlin?  Remember how he was the best defensive prospect in modern history?  I do.  EVERYBODY just knew he was on a different level and we'd never seen anything like him right?  And then Quinn Hughes and Cale Maker turned out to be better at the same stages of their careers.  Nobody talked about those two guys the same way, what happened?  I have a theory.  Rasmus Dahlin was never that much better, or better at all, than other top of the draft defenders.  Neither was Jack Hughes. And neither is Alexis Lafreniere. 

Why does this matter?  Because when people drone on about BPA it assumes that there IS a BPA.  And that the differences between players is obvious.  The reality is the differences at the top of the draft are pretty small and even consensus #1 picks are routinely outperformed by guys that nobody ever discusses in the same way.  So if you choice is between player A and player B (assuming both are highly regarded top picks) you should look at your depth chart and fill holes. 

I still take Dahlin #1 everytime. Completely beside the point, I actually love the way he's playing this year.

I dunno if I agree with your logic fully. And I think the argument you're making would better used with the conclusion that completely tanking isn't all that valuable of a strategy. Because of the lottery, and because guys at 2-3 spot often become very good or just as good, and because you could potentially find a Pettersson, or Pastranak, or Larkin, even farther the down the chart, you should still throw your weight into each and every season and not actually TRY to bottom out for the #1. That TRYING to tank could end up hurting you more than it helps after all things are considered.

I don't necessarily think one should draft Lafren #1 because he will one day be far and away better than the rest of the draft class. One takes him because he's the safest pick. Draft is crap shoot, but this kid is probably the biggest lock to be a future NHLer. The farther you creep down the chart the more questions arise. Maybe Byfield will one day emerge as the best player in class, or maybe it's gonna be the guy taken @ #10. Either way, at the current time, I have more trust that Lafren will make the league and provide me good value than the #10 will.

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

That's where you keeping missing my point.  I don't think you shouldn't be excited about a prospect of Dahlin, or Hughes, or Lafreniere's caliber.  I'm saying that there are MORE prospects of that same caliber in just about every draft, you just don't see it because your opinion of the top guys is a product of their frontrunner status and not the other way around.  Again, if Byfield (for example) was 10 months older (as Lafreniere is) then we're probably not even having this discussion. 

As far as the "chess vs. checkers" or "X-factor" thing from your last post, I basically think this is another form of confirmation bias that tons of people have.  They think flashier guys are better by default.  If Jack Hughes has an X-factor it sure isn't helping him too much right now.  Larionov is a Hall of Famer with an X-factor, but he wasn't much (or any) better than any of his less skilled hall of fame peers.  Datsyuk had the "it" factor over Zetterberg but they had nearly identical PPG rates for most of their careers until Zetterberg blew out his back.  Hell, Filip Zadina is a much more dynamic offensive player than Brady Tkachuk but it doesn't seem to be making any difference on the score sheet.

I think the thing that fans get wrong (myself included) is that we tend to look at drafting as a sort of comparison between junior level players at a moment in time (draft day) when the reality is that how good you are on draft day matters way less than how good you'll be at your peak.  Who cares who the best player is right now? It's about who's going to have the better career, and to figure that out you have to factor in things like age, league, genetics, position, etc., and once you do that you might realize that someone who's a hair behind now may end up being WAY more valuable later.

I think you can lump in more than just age, league, genetics, position, I think you can extend that to personality, habits, education, family history of drug/alcohol abuse, and on and on and on and on. My point being, there are so many different factors that could contribute to this persons rise or downfall that it's almost dumb to look. Almost.

Drafting is gambling. For all I know Seider (my fav blue chip) develops a drug problem over the next few years and completely washes out, and Zadina (my least fav blue chip) matures into a hockey/gym freak like a Jagr.

Lafren definitely feels like the safest pick to me @ #1, with Byfiield behind. After that it's a total crap shoot to me. Maybe Yzerman has a guy he really likes for various reasons not named Byfield or Lafren that he wants to take at #1. In that case I'll defer to to the expert, but from my POV right now Lafren is the best choice.

Edited December 14, 2019 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Lafreniere is / will be the consensus number one pick next June. Of course media will try to make it seem like Byfield is close, but he won't be. If you really do think they're that close, I question how much you've watched, or even read on Lafreniere. He is going to be a really special player. I'll admit, I haven't watched a ton of him, outside of tournament play, but I'll be watching every WJC game, and both players should be on full display. Lafreniere will be the top line left wing, and Byfield will likely be the number two center. Looking forward to it. Either way, I just hope we luck out and get a top two pick. 

It's a good point. They do this EVERYYYYYYYYY year. "Could the #2 actual be the #1????" But the majority of the time the consensus #1 does go #1... It''s as much a typical media narrative as hyping the consensus #1 is.

Granted I DO think the race between Kakko and Hughes was closer last year than it is this year with Lafren and Byfield.

[krsmith17 7,191]

7 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

It's a good point. They do this EVERYYYYYYYYY year. "Could the #2 actual be the #1????" But the majority of the time the consensus #1 does go #1... It''s as much a typical media narrative as hyping the consensus #1 is.

Granted I DO think the race between Kakko and Hughes was closer last year than it is this year with Lafren and Byfield.

Yup. I truly do believe that Lafreniere could be a Matthews calibre player on the wing. I think he will be well over a point per game player in his prime. He will be able to drive a line as good or better than most number one centers in the league. He has shown at every level that he IS that good. Will it translate to the NHL level? I haven't seen any reason why it wouldn't yet.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, ely s said:

do you think CHL competition is comparable to the level of the DEL? to score at a .92 ppg rate at the age of 17 in a man´s league is not an easy thing to do and he already lives the life of a professional.

I know its a small sample size, but other players who have performed in the DEL at the same level at the same age did not turn into the calibre of player that is worthy of a top 4 pick. Not saying Stutzle wont be great, but his performance in Germany hasnt convinced me yet.

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I know its a small sample size, but other players who have performed in the DEL at the same level at the same age did not turn into the calibre of player that is worthy of a top 4 pick. Not saying Stutzle wont be great, but his performance in Germany hasnt convinced me yet.

Serious question... Like who?

[kipwinger 8,521]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

You say "who cares who the best player is right now?", but continue to point out that Kakko is better than Hughes "right now". Everyone (including Dabura) expected Kakko to be more NHL ready out of the gate. That doesn't mean that Hughes won't be the better player long term. Same goes for Tkachuk vs Zadina. Tkachuk was obviously more NHL ready, but don't be surprised if Zadina ends up the better player long term.

Lafreniere is / will be the consensus number one pick next June. Of course media will try to make it seem like Byfield is close, but he won't be. If you really do think they're that close, I question how much you've watched, or even read on Lafreniere. He is going to be a really special player. I'll admit, I haven't watched a ton of him, outside of tournament play, but I'll be watching every WJC game, and both players should be on full display. Lafreniere will be the top line left wing, and Byfield will likely be the number two center. Looking forward to it. Either way, I just hope we luck out and get a top two pick. 

So if you haven't watched a ton of Lafreniere, and you're skeptical of media narratives, how do you know he's going to be "really special"? 

[krsmith17 7,191]

24 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

So if you haven't watched a ton of Lafreniere, and you're skeptical of media narratives, how do you know he's going to be "really special"? 

Because I've been following this kids career since he was like 14...  I'm not pretending to be an amateur scout or anything, but I've watched enough over the years to have a somewhat informed opinion. As informed as an average hockey fan can have... I've watched every Canada game of both U-18 and U-20 World Juniors he's played in. I usually try to watch a few CHL games throughout the year of the top prospects, but life is much busier for me these days, so I haven't seen him at all this season. I have seen a few of his games in years past, but none at all this season. I find it hard enough to keep on top of all the Wings games and most Griffins games, let alone juniors...

When did I say that I'm skeptical of media narratives? I mean, I think we need to take a lot of what they say with a grain of salt, but for the most part, I at least listen to a lot of what Craig Button and others have to say. Everything I've seen and heard, Alexis Lafreniere is and will be a very special player. I think he's a step above any top draft picks we've seen in the past dozen or so years (aside from McDavid). So, not generational, but maybe close to it.

So what makes you believe Byfield is close to Lafreniere? besides stats and age?...

[kipwinger 8,521]

8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Because I've been following this kids career since he was like 14...  I'm not pretending to be an amateur scout or anything, but I've watched enough over the years to have a somewhat informed opinion. As informed as an average hockey fan can have... I've watched every Canada game of both U-18 and U-20 World Juniors he's played in. I usually try to watch a few CHL games throughout the year of the top prospects, but life is much busier for me these days, so I haven't seen him at all this season. I have seen a few of his games in years past, but none at all this season. I find it hard enough to keep on top of all the Wings games and most Griffins games, let alone juniors...

When did I say that I'm skeptical of media narratives? I mean, I think we need to take a lot of what they say with a grain of salt, but for the most part, I at least listen to a lot of what Craig Button and others have to say. Everything I've seen and heard, Alexis Lafreniere is and will be a very special player. I think he's a step above any top draft picks we've seen in the past dozen or so years (aside from McDavid). So, not generational, but maybe close to it.

So what makes you believe Byfield is close to Lafreniere? besides stats and age?...

Using your rationale I could just say, "I think he's close to Lafreniere because everything I've seen or read has him as the next best ranked prospect".  Then add the fact that he's younger and plays a harder position with more responsibility and he might even be closer than that. 

But that's not the point I've been making for two pages now.  The point I'm making is that despite the fact that Byfield isn't better than Lafreniere now (which is empirically true) he is probably a better pick for Detroit because he fills a need, and may turn out to be the better player at this peak. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by kipwinger

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Serious question... Like who?

Marcel Goc and Jochen Hecht both played in the DEL as 17 and 18 year olds. I am just saying that up until now, these are the best forwards to have been drafted out of the German leagues. Even Draisaitl went the CHL route, so its hard for me to get behind a guy coming from that league.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[kipwinger 8,521]

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I still take Dahlin #1 everytime. Completely beside the point, I actually love the way he's playing this year.

I dunno if I agree with your logic fully. And I think the argument you're making would better used with the conclusion that completely tanking isn't all that valuable of a strategy. Because of the lottery, and because guys at 2-3 spot often become very good or just as good, and because you could potentially find a Pettersson, or Pastranak, or Larkin, even farther the down the chart, you should still throw your weight into each and every season and not actually TRY to bottom out for the #1. That TRYING to tank could end up hurting you more than it helps after all things are considered.

I don't necessarily think one should draft Lafren #1 because he will one day be far and away better than the rest of the draft class. One takes him because he's the safest pick. Draft is crap shoot, but this kid is probably the biggest lock to be a future NHLer. The farther you creep down the chart the more questions arise. Maybe Byfield will one day emerge as the best player in class, or maybe it's gonna be the guy taken @ #10. Either way, at the current time, I have more trust that Lafren will make the league and provide me good value than the #10 will.

I think you can lump in more than just age, league, genetics, position, I think you can extend that to personality, habits, education, family history of drug/alcohol abuse, and on and on and on and on. My point being, there are so many different factors that could contribute to this persons rise or downfall that it's almost dumb to look. Almost.

Drafting is gambling. For all I know Seider (my fav blue chip) develops a drug problem over the next few years and completely washes out, and Zadina (my least fav blue chip) matures into a hockey/gym freak like a Jagr.

Lafren definitely feels like the safest pick to me @ #1, with Byfiield behind. After that it's a total crap shoot to me. Maybe Yzerman has a guy he really likes for various reasons not named Byfield or Lafren that he wants to take at #1. In that case I'll defer to to the expert, but from my POV right now Lafren is the best choice.

I'm not talking about the #10 pick.  Given our current trajectory we'll pick no worse than 4th.  And in the context of the Lafreniere vs. Byfield discussion we're talking about 1-2 overall.  For all intents and purposes the #1 pick is not a "safer" pick than the #2 or #3 picks.  If there's a difference in likelihood of playing in the NHL between top five picks, it's probably minuscule.  Using a previous example, it's not like Svechnikov was a riskier pick than Dahlin because he wasn't the consensus #1 guy, or even Zadina or Tkachuk.  They were all always going to be NHLers.  

And speaking of Dahlin...

Any scouting which concluded (as they all did) that there was a giant rift between him and Quinn Hughes was not only wrong about Dahlin, but was also wrong about Hughes given how things have played out so far. Even if they end up having similarly brilliant careers the scouting would have been wrong because NOBODY thought that was possible.  And if all that's true, then why would anybody have any faith in these scouting reports the next time they say someone is WAY better than someone else?  In recent memory only McDavid and Matthews were top ranked prospects who turned into obviously better players than the next few guys after them.  Otherwise it's usually not that clear cut, which wouldn't be a big deal except that all year long everyone makes it out to be clear cut.  I wish I had a dollar for every person who said Leon Draisaitl wasn't in the same tier as Aaron Ekblad, or Quinn Hughes wasn't in the same tier as Dahlin.  And it's not like these are guys that came out of left field.  They're brilliant hockey players who nevertheless were not on the same plane as the top guy because the top guy is the top guy. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

22 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Using your rationale I could just say, "I think he's close to Lafreniere because everything I've seen or read has him as the next best ranked prospect".  Then add the fact that he's younger and plays a harder position with more responsibility and he might even be closer than that. 

But that's not the point I've been making for two pages now.  The point I'm making is that despite the fact that Byfield isn't better than Lafreniere now (which is empirically true) he is probably a better pick for Detroit because he fills a need, and may turn out to be the better player at this peak. 

... and you could say that... Why not?

How much have you seen these two play?

... and I disagree with that point. In my opinion, you always take the best player available, especially if they're as "special" as Lafreniere is projected to be. The last thing this team needs is another left-handed winger. The most important thing this team needs is "elite" talent, regardless of position. Ideally IF we were to land the top pick, the best player on the board would be a center. That's not the case though, so you don't pass up the best player, just so you can take a center.

Lafreniere on the wing, is going to make whichever center he plays with, that much better. If he happens to be Larkin's winger, I think Larkin is an 80+ point two-way center. You don't seem to believe that Veleno / Rasmussen are legit top six centers. Lafreniere on either of their wings would make them legit top six centers. He's that good. He drives play, and makes everyone around him that much better.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm not talking about the #10 pick.  Given our current trajectory we'll pick no worse than 4th.  And in the context of the Lafreniere vs. Byfield discussion we're talking about 1-2 overall.  For all intents and purposes the #1 pick is not a "safer" pick than the #2 or #3 picks.  If there's a difference in likelihood of playing in the NHL between top five picks, it's probably minuscule.  Using a previous example, it's not like Svechnikov was a riskier pick than Dahlin because he wasn't the consensus #1 guy, or even Zadina or Tkachuk.  They were all always going to be NHLers.  

And speaking of Dahlin...

Any scouting which concluded (as they all did) that there was a giant rift between him and Quinn Hughes was not only wrong about Dahlin, but was also wrong about Hughes given how things have played out so far. Even if they end up having similarly brilliant careers the scouting would have been wrong because NOBODY thought that was possible.  And if all that's true, then why would anybody have any faith in these scouting reports the next time they say someone is WAY better than someone else?  In recent memory only McDavid and Matthews were top ranked prospects who turned into obviously better players than the next few guys after them.  Otherwise it's usually not that clear cut, which wouldn't be a big deal except that all year long everyone makes it out to be clear cut.  I wish I had a dollar for every person who said Leon Draisaitl wasn't in the same tier as Aaron Ekblad, or Quinn Hughes wasn't in the same tier as Dahlin.  And it's not like these are guys that came out of left field.  They're brilliant hockey players who nevertheless were not on the same plane as the top guy because the top guy is the top guy. 

Lafreniere has the potential to be in this conversation. Likely not McDavid level, but Matthews level is definitely possible. And don't say, "we hear that every year, about every top prospect"... because we don't. Lafreniere is much different than Hughes, or Hischier, or Dahlin.

In any other draft, I'd agree that a player from 2-10 could end up better than 1. It's actually likely, since there are 9 chances to 1. The problem is, you still have to pick that 1... In this draft though, I highly doubt any player comes close to Lafreniere. He's that much better than anyone else in my opinion.

[kipwinger 8,521]

1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

... and you could say that... Why not?

How much have you seen these two play?

... and I disagree with that point. In my opinion, you always take the best player available, especially if they're as "special" as Lafreniere is projected to be. The last thing this team needs is another left-handed winger. The most important thing this team needs is "elite" talent, regardless of position. Ideally IF we were to land the top pick, the best player on the board would be a center. That's not the case though, so you don't pass up the best player, just so you can take a center.

Lafreniere on the wing, is going to make whichever center he plays with, that much better. If he happens to be Larkin's winger, I think Larkin is an 80+ point two-way center. You don't seem to believe that Veleno / Rasmussen are legit top six centers. Lafreniere on either of their wings would make them legit top six centers. He's that good. He drives play, and makes everyone around him that much better.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You say that we should take the best, most special, player we can get but have routinely balked at the idea of picking the Russian goalie Askarov despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees he's "special" and WAY better than his peers. 

So if we should take the best player, because we need elite talent, then if we don't get Lafreniere we should draft Askarov right?

3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Lafreniere has the potential to be in this conversation. Likely not McDavid level, but Matthews level is definitely possible. And don't say, "we hear that every year, about every top prospect"... because we don't. Lafreniere is much different than Hughes, or Hischier, or Dahlin.

In any other draft, I'd agree that a player from 2-10 could end up better than 1. It's actually likely, since there are 9 chances to 1. The problem is, you still have to pick that 1... In this draft though, I highly doubt any player comes close to Lafreniere. He's that much better than anyone else in my opinion.

Dude, Dahlin was literally called the "greatest defensive prospect EVER" and the "Connor McDavid of Defensemen". You're downplaying it now to win debate points.  He was HYPED! to the f"cking moon.

[krsmith17 7,191]

40 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Marcel Goc and Jochen Hecht both played in the DEL as 17 and 18 year olds. I am just saying that up until now, these are the best forwards to have been drafted out of the German leagues. Even Draisaitl went the CHL route, so its hard for me to get behind a guy coming from that league.

Two players drafted 20 years ago? Hockey in Germany, and scouting in general has come a LONG way since then. Hell, we just drafted a player out of the DEL last year and despite what any of us thought, he's looking like he *could* be a top 5 pick out of that draft class.

It's still a men's league and one that has gotten a lot more competitive since Goc and Hecht started there as teenagers.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You say that we should take the best, most special, player we can get but have routinely balked at the idea of picking the Russian goalie Askarov despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees he's "special" and WAY better than his peers. 

So if we should take the best player, because we need elite talent, then if we don't get Lafreniere we should draft Askarov right?

Not at all. I just don't agree with taking a goalie in the top half of the first round. We NEED a goalie. It's arguably our biggest weakness right now. He's said to be a top 5 pick, but I personally wouldn't take him. A lot of scouts and GM's share that same philosophy, which is why I think he'll slip. Maybe not past 10, but I doubt he goes top 5.

Very different situations.

7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Dude, Dahlin was literally called the "greatest defensive prospect EVER" and the "Connor McDavid of Defensemen". You're downplaying it now to win debate points.  He was HYPED! to the f"cking moon.

I didn't say Dahlin wasn't being hyped. Hughes was being hyped last year too. It's different with Lafreniere though. He's on a completely different level in my opinion. 

[kipwinger 8,521]

1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

Not at all. I just don't agree with taking a goalie in the top half of the first round. We NEED a goalie. It's arguably our biggest weakness right now. He's said to be a top 5 pick, but I personally wouldn't take him. A lot of scouts and GM's share that same philosophy, which is why I think he'll slip. Maybe not past 10, but I doubt he goes top 5.

Very different situations.

I didn't say Dahlin wasn't being hyped. Hughes was being hyped last year too. It's different with Lafreniere though. He's on a completely different level in my opinion. 

I'm confused, you said we should take "BPA" and that we need "elite" talent.  There's an elite goalie who's likely to be the BPA when we pick, so we should take him right? Or are you suggesting that Askarov could be the BPA and we shouldn't take him anyway because of his position? Because that sounds a lot like what I'm advocating with Byfield.

Also, there's no reason to think Lafreniere is anything more than your average top of the draft player.  The same things you're saying about Lafreniere now were said by others, more knowledgeable than you, about guys like Dahlin.  They were wrong, and are wrong, routinely when they do this.  Ray Ferraro, for instance, said of Dahlin, “The kid is a prodigy, He’s the Auston Matthews or Connor McDavid of defensemen if we can compare him to the last couple of drafts.” Just a quick google search will provide reems and reems of such comments.  So when you say, Lafreniere is "on a different level" I don't know upon what rational basis you've made that conclusion.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

24 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm not talking about the #10 pick.  Given our current trajectory we'll pick no worse than 4th.  And in the context of the Lafreniere vs. Byfield discussion we're talking about 1-2 overall.  For all intents and purposes the #1 pick is not a "safer" pick than the #2 or #3 picks.  If there's a difference in likelihood of playing in the NHL between top five picks, it's probably minuscule.  Using a previous example, it's not like Svechnikov was a riskier pick than Dahlin because he wasn't the consensus #1 guy, or even Zadina or Tkachuk.  They were all always going to be NHLers.  

And speaking of Dahlin...

Any scouting which concluded (as they all did) that there was a giant rift between him and Quinn Hughes was not only wrong about Dahlin, but was also wrong about Hughes given how things have played out so far. Even if they end up having similarly brilliant careers the scouting would have been wrong because NOBODY thought that was possible.  And if all that's true, then why would anybody have any faith in these scouting reports the next time they say someone is WAY better than someone else?  In recent memory only McDavid and Matthews were top ranked prospects who turned into obviously better players than the next few guys after them.  Otherwise it's usually not that clear cut, which wouldn't be a big deal except that all year long everyone makes it out to be clear cut.  I wish I had a dollar for every person who said Leon Draisaitl wasn't in the same tier as Aaron Ekblad, or Quinn Hughes wasn't in the same tier as Dahlin.  And it's not like these are guys that came out of left field.  They're brilliant hockey players who nevertheless were not on the same plane as the top guy because the top guy is the top guy. 

Apply my point about the #10 pick to your point about Dahlin and Hughes then. I simply am pointing out that I'm not under any illusion that say the #7 or #10 may ACTUALLY be the best player in the draft. But if we knew that going into the draft then they wouldn't be the #7 or #10 pick!

Drafting is gambling. I'm going to put my chips on the trick with the highest chance. Doesn't mean it will be the best hand at the table (we can't know for certain) but logic commands I should do it anyway.

I'm not the prospect guru some ppl are, but this Lafren kid has been hyped for a long time. KR knowing about him since 14 doesn't surprise me at all. He's been hyped as future #1 for a while and keeps proving that's accurate. Byfield's season could be a one off for all I know. 

11 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You say that we should take the best, most special, player we can get but have routinely balked at the idea of picking the Russian goalie Askarov despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees he's "special" and WAY better than his peers. 

So if we should take the best player, because we need elite talent, then if we don't get Lafreniere we should draft Askarov right?

Dude, Dahlin was literally called the "greatest defensive prospect EVER" and the "Connor McDavid of Defensemen". You're downplaying it now to win debate points.  He was HYPED! to the f"cking moon.

I definitely hyped him as the best Dman prospect in a long time. Don't think I was ever on the Ekblad train or anything. And I do prefer him much more than Hughes if you''re wondering. I think he's the #1 Dman in his age group. I prefer him to Makar even.

4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm confused, you said we should take "BPA" and that we need "elite" talent.  There's an elite goalie who's likely to be the BPA when we pick, so we should take him right? Or are you suggesting that Askarov could be the BPA and we shouldn't take him anyway because of his position? Because that sounds a lot like what I'm advocating with Byfield.

Also, there's no reason to think Lafreniere is anything more than your average top of the draft player.  The same things you're saying about Lafreniere now were said by others, more knowledgeable than you, about guys like Dahlin.  They were wrong, and are wrong, routinely when they do this.  Ray Ferraro, for instance, said of Dahlin, “The kid is a prodigy, He’s the Auston Matthews or Connor McDavid of defensemen if we can compare him to the last couple of drafts.” Just a quick google search will provide reems and reems of such comments.  So when you say, Lafreniere is "on a different level" I don't know upon what rational basis you've made that conclusion.

Is Dahlin having a bad season??

[Dabura 12,207]

7 hours ago, kipwinger said:

That's where you keeping missing my point.

[fart noise]

Honestly, dude, I don't think you have a point. And even if you do, I'm at the point where I don't care. You're saying I'm hung up on mainstream opinions, all when I'm one of, like, four people in the entire world who cares enough to post lots of thoughts on lots of different draft-eligibles on LetsGoWings.com on a semi-regular basis. "You can't see that there are other non-consensus-1st-overall guys who are capable of being just as good as the consensus 1st overall guys" is not an actual thing. It's a weird straw man that you've been beating on and off for the past year.

I've said roughly 8,000 times on this forum that 2020 is looking like a very deep draft and that we can reasonably expect it to produce a lot of great NHLers. There's nothing to say Lafreniere or Byfield will be the two best NHLers this draft produces. I'm completely down with that notion. However, for the time being, I'm focused on them because they seem to me to be the safest bets for what the Wings need, which is a gamechanging pickup who can pay immediate dividends.

I could write an essay about how "ACKSHUALLY, DRYSDALE IS THE REAL #1 HERE, BECAUSE MAKAR"...but I don't wanna. I get the feeling people are overrating Raymond. I wonder about Holtz's overall game. I see hints of Elias Pettersson in Stutzle. I think what Lundell is doing in the Liiga is really impressive. I think what Byfield is doing for a kid his age is extraordinary, though I put an asterisk next to his name because he's bigger and stronger and faster than his peers. I love Lafreniere, but I'm not a fan of his skating and I'm a bit concerned that his aggressive playing style is going to lead to lots of injuries -- and there's also the fact that he missed the cutoff for 2019 draft eligibility by a hair (i.e. he's older than most, i.e. let's not get *too* starry eyed over his production).

I have lots of thoughts about lots of stuff. I don't post all those thoughts. But I do have them.