Whole lotto suckin’ (Blackhawks 2023 offseason)

[WrigleyField 22]

46 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

They still have plenty of picks over the next three years. Multiple in each of the top rounds. If you can add another top half pick this year by trading your other 1st and a 2nd or two, you could be getting another top 6 forward that will be ready by 2024. 
 

what if the Russian falls to 5 and Montreal doesn’t want to take the risk?

If depth is what they need, then sit back. Or trade other picks for multiple established young pieces?

[CubinNY]

Big day for Blackhawks! I swear to god that I saw something on Twitter two days ago that said the Blackhawks had the 1st pick. I don't pay much attention, so I thought it already happened. 

[WrigleyField 22]

I've admittedly checked out a lot the past few years. 

Basically stuck with Seth Jones and then also traded any other decent player they had right? So basically Jones, Bedard, and blank slate?  Any minor leaguers that will likely be up in a top 6 role? 

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

Here is the video of the actual lottery process.  Apparently the list of 4 digit numbers for each team was released the night before as well, so it wasn't like the guy looking at the paper to determine it was the blackhawks could have just said whatever he wanted.  There are also reporters and a couple of team representatives in the room.  

[jersey cubs fan]

58 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

I've admittedly checked out a lot the past few years. 

Basically stuck with Seth Jones and then also traded any other decent player they had right? So basically Jones, Bedard, and blank slate?  Any minor leaguers that will likely be up in a top 6 role? 

They have three young D men that should all be in NHL next year, including their current top prospect. They have Reichel who might be top 6. Then Nazar who could join the team after college season. 
 

it’s not really depth they need, it’s top 6 forwards. They don’t even have a guy on the roster that would justifiable be paired with Reichel and Bedard. 
 

thry need impact. Signing free agents and trading for real nhl players has to be an option. Moving quantity of picks for quality has to be an option. 
 

they have 4 2nd round picks this season. 8 2nd round picks over the next 3 drafts. That’s 8 shots at guys who could be mid roster players by 2026/27 and beyond, but I have to assume some of them will be dealt. If they take 6 guys in the first two rounds this draft that’s 6 guys who could be getting paid in 4-6 years all at once. 
 

The list of their top prospects is littered with comments like “could be in the nhl in 2024/25.”

[BigbadB]

Been paying more attention to the Bulls the last few seasons. Might be time to watch these kids develop and turn this team into another dynasty. Looking forward to it. Could we soon get to a point where all 4 Chicago teams are worth watching all at the same time? 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

10 hours ago, bukie said:

Easy answer: Kane is a generational talent and has performed that way in his career. He's arguably the best American player ever (at least in an argument with Chris Chelios), and is top 3 all time in every Blackhawks category, along with being the best player on a Cup contender for 10 years, and an easy top 5 player in the league from his rookie year until maybe this year.

I know it's inevitable because of how language works, but "generational" gets thrown around more lightly every year 

[WrigleyField 22]

3 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I know it's inevitable because of how language works, but "generational" gets thrown around more lightly every year 

Only one every thirty years. Thems the rules!

[Tim]

1 minute ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Only one every thirty years. Thems the rules!

I started to reply to that, then decided I didn't want to get into a semantics debate

[UMFan83]

1 hour ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

If depth is what they need, then sit back. Or trade other picks for multiple established young pieces?

They have 19 or 20 in the first round, 4 second round picks and 3 third round picks.  I understand the need for depth, but if they can trade their 1st and a couple of 2nds to get another top line/pairing guy with star potential, I'd at least explore it.  They also have two 2nds and 3rds the next 2 seasons after this that they could trade from if they wanted to go hard this year.

Edited May 9, 2023 by UMFan83

[Hairyducked Idiot]

10 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I am admittedly a relatively uninformed hockey fan, but can someone explain why Kane is or isn't a good comp for Bedard?  They would seem to have similar size and skillsets, but Bedard is being labeled a "generational talent."  While Kane has been a great player for a very long time, I don't know that I would put him in that category.  So is there something about Bedard that makes people think he is another level above Kane, or is the comp simply not a valid one at all?

Obviously we know Kane turned into a perennial all-star with excellent playoff performances.  

But heading into the draft at this point in their careers, Bedard is better than Kane was.  He's faster and has a better shot, and a better off-ice profile.  (They do profile pretty similarly defensively. You're not going to get a lot there).

I think "generational" is thrown around too lightly.   Bedard is the best prospect since McDavid, but I think most (not all) scouts have him a half-step behind McDavid at the same age. His 90th percentile projection is McDavid-level, his 50th percentile is about Kane.

I think if you didn't account for how their careers turned out and *just* went by who they looked like on draft day, and you put the last 20 no. 1 overalls into a draft, Bedard would go somewhere in the 3rd-5th range.  Definitely behind McDavid/Crosby. In a cluster with Matthews and Ovechkin.  Kane would slip to maybe just outside the top 10.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't think there's a lot of market for letting the Blackhawks trade up.  The value curve is a lot sharper than the NFL.   The first few picks tend to be pretty high value and after that the rest of the first round is throwing darts.

[Irrelevant Dude]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I think if you didn't account for how their careers turned out and *just* went by who they looked like on draft day, and you put the last 20 no. 1 overalls into a draft, Bedard would go somewhere in the 3rd-5th range.  Definitely behind McDavid/Crosby. In a cluster with Matthews and Ovechkin.  Kane would slip to maybe just outside the top 10.

That helps put things into perspective.  The way everyone talks about Bedard, one could be led to believe that he is the best draft prospect of the last 50 years and the future best player in the NHL, but it seems like that would be a stretch.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

12 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Only one every thirty years. Thems the rules!

I would settle for one every 10ish.

I know it's just the nature of sports slang and you can't fight common usage, but it still makes my head twitch a little.  

Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid.  That's four in 40 years, or one a decade on average.  Gotta draw the line somewhere.  Once you open it up to Ovechkin and Jagr, the slippery slope kicks in and next thing you know you're wondering if you should count Toews *and* Kane or just one.

[UMFan83]

25 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I know it's inevitable because of how language works, but "generational" gets thrown around more lightly every year 

It's similar to the term dynasty.  For some reason the overuse of the word dynasty drives me nuts, but generational doesn't.  I guess there could be a better word to use that more accurately characterizes the type of prospect Bedard is, but I guess its being used to describe the highest level of elite prospect, a surefire cornerstone star player.  Someone who is regarded higher than a normal number 1 overall pick.   To put it in basketball terms because I'm more familiar with prospects there are a few different tiers:

Tier 1:  LeBron - Generational, no doubt prospect.  Expected to be a cornerstone of the league moving forward

Tier 2: KAT/AD/Kyrie - Likely superstar and among best players in the league for the duration of career

Tier 3: Wiggins/Ayton - High floor player with superstar upside but maybe a little more risky in terms of career projection

Tier 4: Anthony Bennett - There's probably a tier between these (maybe a Joe Smith tier) but very high risk player with higher bust potential.  Is going number 1 because its a poor draft and someone has to be drafted 1st.

(I realize this is obvious to many here, I just wanted to spell it out for my own good)

Bedard is a Tier 1 prospect similar to McDavid or Crosby.  Kane was probably a Tier 2 prospect but rose to a league cornerstone type of player.

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by UMFan83

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

1 minute ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

That helps put things into perspective.  The way everyone talks about Bedard, one could be led to believe that he is the best draft prospect of the last 50 years and the future best player in the NHL, but it seems like that would be a stretch.

Kyle explained it better, but I think people do think of McDavid/Crosby as better prospects, but that Bedard isn't just a "normal year" number 1 pick.  He's someone that even casual fans have been thinking about for a while with who was going to get the first pick in his draft year. 

[WrigleyField 22]

3 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I would settle for one every 10ish.

I know it's just the nature of sports slang and you can't fight common usage, but it still makes my head twitch a little.  

Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid.  That's four in 40 years, or one a decade on average.  Gotta draw the line somewhere.  Once you open it up to Ovechkin and Jagr, the slippery slope kicks in and next thing you know you're wondering if you should count Toews *and* Kane or just one.

Well now I get to just point out the semantical debate about how it's not evenly distributed so you can have concurrent generational talents. 

1979

1984

2005

2015

 

[UMFan83]

Just now, PosterToBeNamedLater said:

Kyle explained it better, but I think people do think of McDavid/Crosby as better prospects, but that Bedard isn't just a "normal year" number 1 pick.  He's someone that even casual fans have been thinking about for a while with who was going to get the first pick in his draft year. 

I was reading some articles last night, and an Athletic article that polled several scouts put Bedard as the second best overall prospect over the last 10 years, only McDavid polled higher but at least a couple of scouts but Bedard on McDavid's same level/tier.

[WrigleyField 22]

Just now, PosterToBeNamedLater said:

Kyle explained it better, but I think people do think of McDavid/Crosby as better prospects, but that Bedard isn't just a "normal year" number 1 pick.  He's someone that even casual fans have been thinking about for a while with who was going to get the first pick in his draft year. 

I like the "would have easily been #1 pick the year before his draft" measure, which Bedard meets. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Just now, UMFan83 said:

It's similar to the term dynasty.  For some reason the overuse of the word dynasty drives me nuts, but generational doesn't.  I guess there could be a better word to use that more accurately characterizes the type of prospect Bedard is, but I guess its being used to describe the highest level of elite prospect, a surefire cornerstone star player.   To put it in basketball terms because I'm more familiar with prospects there are a few different tiers:

Tier 1:  LeBron - Generational, no doubt prospect.  Expected to be a cornerstone of the league moving forward

Tier 2: KAT/AD/Kyrie - Likely superstar and among best players in the league for the duration of career

Tier 3: Wiggins/Ayton - High floor player with superstar upside but maybe a little more risky in terms of career projection

Tier 4: Anthony Bennett - There's probably a tier between these (maybe a Joe Smith tier) but very high risk player with higher bust potential.  Is going number 1 because its a poor draft and someone has to be drafted 1st.

(I realize this is obvious to many here, I just wanted to spell it out for my own good)

Bedard is a Tier 1 prospect similar to McDavid or Crosby.  Kane was probably a Tier 2 prospect but rose to a league cornerstone type of player.

 

I would put Bedard at the top of tier 2 and draft-day Kane tier 3.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

12 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Well now I get to just point out the semantical debate about how it's not evenly distributed so you can have concurrent generational talents. 

1979

1984

2005

2015

 

I'm ok with having concurrent occasionally so long as we also sometimes have zero.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think you can go under 10 and justify the term. we’re not talking human life span generations. Sports generations come and go in 5-8 years. There is a kid playing peewee (12U) somewhere today who will probably surpass Bedard’s reputation by the time they are draft eligible. 5 years is a long ass time in hockey, just look at the 2019/20 Blackhawks who thought they were the contenders they were 5 years before. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

4 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

I think you can go under 10 and justify the term. we’re not talking human life span generations. Sports generations come and go in 5-8 years. There is a kid playing peewee (12U) somewhere today who will probably surpass Bedard’s reputation by the time they are draft eligible. 5 years is a long ass time in hockey, just look at the 2019/20 Blackhawks who thought they were the contenders they were 5 years before. 

If you go that low, then Bedard qualifies, but now you probably need to subdivide because he'd be weak relative to other generational guys 

[Tim]

The #2 pick in this draft is a guy who very likely would have gone #1 pretty easily in the past few drafts. But there's no doubt that Bedard has clear separation over him as the #1 pick. He's had 100 goals - goals, not points - in his 83 games played this year. I won't say "generational", but he's really, really good.

[Tim]

6 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

If you go that low, then Bedard qualifies, but now you probably need to subdivide because he'd be weak relative to other generational guys 

You said 10 years. There's nobody in the next couple drafts at Bedard's level, So in 10+ years after McDavid, he's the best prospect.