2023 Draft Prospect Polls: Happy/Mad with Nate Danielson at #9?

[Fyodorov]

I can easily say that, because he already played a game in the NHL, which also took place in NA (I think Canada counts,right?)

Que?

My bad, you are right. He played one game. My point still stands. Not a knock on him, just don't think you can count those chickens yet by any stretch.

 

[RED WINGS STOMP]

Some of these statements dont make a ton of sense to me. If Danielson becomes a 2 C that scores 25-35 goals a season, who is also has a strong 200 ft game, that most definitely moves the needle. If the Wings had that kind of player right now, they are a much, much better team right now, most likely a playoff team.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Let's bunt our way to victory!

Since we're mixing sports analogies...Which team scores more?

2 guys strike out, 1 guy hits a double and the 4th guy hits a home run.

Or

2 guys get singles, another a double and the 4th hits a triple.

Some of these statements dont make a ton of since to me. If Danielson becomes a 2 C that scores 25-35 goals a season, who is also has a strong 200 ft game, that most definitely moves the needle. If the Wings had that kind of player right now, they are a much, much better team right now, most likely a playoff team.

Exactly. Shit, even if Danielson only became a 35-40 point 3C that moves the needle for Detroit because that's better than what we've got currently.

 

[jfrank21]

He's 12 days away from being eligible for last year's draft...and he's not Kasper or Dylan Cozens, sorry Ogee. I think it was @lilidk who posted that podcast snippet from the hockey prospect guys where they throw some cold water on all these top 6 lock projections. Sorry, I'm not interested in drafting Helm at #9 overall. Not with everyone else who should be available. Now, 17....maybe. Give me Benson over Danielson all day every day.

 

[norrisnick]

Since we're mixing sports analogies...Which team scores more?

2 guys strike out, 1 guy hits a double and the 4th guy hits a home run.

Or

2 guys get singles, another a double and the 4th hits a triple.



Exactly. Shit, even if Danielson only became a 35-40 point 3C that moves the needle for Detroit because that's better than what we've got currently.

You bunted right into the infield shift. Sorry dude...

It's like your vacillating back and forth here. Do we, or do we not exist in a world where the Wings have Copp and Kasper?

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

He's 12 days away from being eligible for last year's draft...and he's not Kasper or Dylan Cozens, sorry Ogee. I think it was @lilidk who posted that podcast snippet from the hockey prospect guys where they throw some cold water on all these top 6 lock projections. Sorry, I'm not interested in drafting Helm at #9 overall. Not with everyone else who should be available. Now, 17....maybe. Give me Benson over Danielson all day every day.

He's not Helm. Also compare the team Cozens played for in 2018-19 versus Danielson's team in 2022-23.

2018-19 Lethbridge Hurricanes
2022-23 Brandon Wheat Kings

He was his team's leader by a lot. The 2nd and 3rd highest scorers on Brandon this season would have been the 4th and 7th highest scorers on Lethbridge. And in the same amount of games, Danielson scored 1 fewer goal and 6 fewer points than Cozens. Like I said before, if he gets traded to a real WHL squad then I believe this is a player that will excel.

On Shane Malloy's comments, what is Danielson's calling card because he was trying to be a swiss army knife player? I guess that depends on the team that drafts him.

 

[Detroit Knights]

Not sure how you can say definitively that Kasper "worked out great" before he's even played a single game in NA, let alone the NHL.

well...he did play 1 game in the NA, in the NHL......

 

[lilidk]

He's 12 days away from being eligible for last year's draft...and he's not Kasper or Dylan Cozens, sorry Ogee. I think it was @lilidk who posted that podcast snippet from the hockey prospect guys where they throw some cold water on all these top 6 lock projections. Sorry, I'm not interested in drafting Helm at #9 overall. Not with everyone else who should be available. Now, 17....maybe. Give me Benson over Danielson all day every day.

Brad Allen is awesome

 

[newfy]

He's 12 days away from being eligible for last year's draft...and he's not Kasper or Dylan Cozens, sorry Ogee. I think it was @lilidk who posted that podcast snippet from the hockey prospect guys where they throw some cold water on all these top 6 lock projections. Sorry, I'm not interested in drafting Helm at #9 overall. Not with everyone else who should be available. Now, 17....maybe. Give me Benson over Danielson all day every day.

Now go read the post I replied to that with, quoting actual NHL scouts and executives about Danielson's game.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

Happy, good player.

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

Ecstatic

 

[Hen Kolland]

Flaws are a good thing. Those are things you can improve to make yourself better. If you don't have any flaws, how is Danielson going to dramatically improve?

Arbitrary could well be my middle name. It's actually Andrew, but both A's.

Having flaws does not correlate with being able to make improvements though. Like Connor McDavid is the best player in the league by a significant margin, was the best prospect since since Crosby(?), and he’s a substantially better player today than he was when he broke in. What you describe as not having flaws is just an incorrect assessment of saying “he’s a well rounded player” and he’s likely to get better in many, if not all, of those areas he’s good not great at.

He has less improvement to make to achieve an NHL level compared to many other prospects. Your concern is that you doubt he can improve substantially enough to be special in any one area. Which I think is valid, but how many of the flaws in other prospects are going to be insurmountable or limiting to their special traits.

 

[norrisnick]

Having flaws does not correlate with being able to make improvements though. Like Connor McDavid is the best player in the league by a significant margin, was the best prospect since since Crosby(?), and he’s a substantially better player today than he was when he broke in. What you describe as not having flaws is just an incorrect assessment of saying “he’s a well rounded player” and he’s likely to get better in many, if not all, of those areas he’s good not great at.

He has less improvement to make to achieve an NHL level compared to many other prospects. Your concern is that you doubt he can improve substantially enough to be special in any one area. Which I think is valid, but how many of the flaws in other prospects are going to be insurmountable or limiting to their special traits.

I never said anything about necessarily being able to make improvements. Merely that there is more opportunity for improvement. And that that opportunity for improvement has the potential to achieve higher gains than the "well rounded" player.

If there is similar production out of two players and one of the two players has more obvious flaws to his game, it stands to reason that the opportunity for improvement is greater by addressing those flaws. Is it a guarantee? No.

It's a matter of risk. The Wings probably ought to start taking some.

 

[lgrws91]

At 17th I'd be ok with it. But at 9 we need to draft someone who has star possibilities in them. Gota swing high. Not safe picks

 

[jfrank21]

Now go read the post I replied to that with, quoting actual NHL scouts and executives about Danielson's game.

No
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm just playing, I saw your post in both threads already. I'm just curious which executives and scouts said it...the ones who drafted guys like Nick Ritchie and Mikey McCloud with top 15 picks? With this class, I'd prefer something more out of the #9 pick. Again, not saying he cant be a valuable player, but he's not my guy with that 1st pick.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I never said anything about necessarily being able to make improvements. Merely that there is more opportunity for improvement. And that that opportunity for improvement has the potential to achieve higher gains than the "well rounded" player.

If there is similar production out of two players and one of the two players has more obvious flaws to his game, it stands to reason that the opportunity for improvement is greater by addressing those flaws. Is it a guarantee? No.

It's a matter of risk. The Wings probably ought to start taking some.

Calculated risk sure. What you are characterizing as opportunity for improvement, a detractor would say an area that absolutely needs improvement.

Like Wood is a good example because we’ve gone back and forth before on him. To you, Wood is a really exciting prospect because you love the offensive upside he brings to the table and you think that if he improves his mobility, he can achieve a different echelon of quality for the Wings. I am intrigued by Wood’s offensive upside, but I view it as a non-negotiable that his skating improve or I think his offensive prowess will get too easily disguised by his inability to move with the NHL’s demanded pace of play.

Danielson here doesn’t have any of those traits that absolutely need to improve to see him have success, but his success to your point might not be the 100 point or even point per game level that you are seeking in a prospect.

I hope that we do something bold, but I also want to feel certain we got an NHL player who can/will/should play in the top half of our lineup. Danielson is that (one of them), even if he’s not destined for stardom.

 

[norrisnick]

Calculated risk sure. What you are characterizing as opportunity for improvement, a detractor would say an area that absolutely needs improvement.

Like Wood is a good example because we’ve gone back and forth before on him. To you, Wood is a really exciting prospect because you love the offensive upside he brings to the table and you think that if he improves his mobility, he can achieve a different echelon of quality for the Wings. I am intrigued by Wood’s offensive upside, but I view it as a non-negotiable that his skating improve or I think his offensive prowess will get too easily disguised by his inability to move with the NHL’s demanded pace of play.

Danielson here doesn’t have any of those traits that absolutely need to improve to see him have success, but his success to your point might not be the 100 point or even point per game level that you are seeking in a prospect.

I hope that we do something bold, but I also want to feel certain we got an NHL player who can/will/should play in the top half of our lineup. Danielson is that (one of them), even if he’s not destined for stardom.

We aren't picking high enough for that certainty. IMO Wood has higher odds of being a top half of the lineup player than Danielson. It's just his overall odds of being an NHLer are lower.

 

[NickH8]

I've warmed up on Danielson. I think he'd be a fine pick. I'd bet money he'll be a 20 goal 40 assist two way center in the NHL. People saying he's just Kasper but a righty are full of shit. They're quite different players. And there's no such thing as too many centers.

 

[norrisnick]

I've warmed up on Danielson. I think he'd be a fine pick. I'd bet money he'll be a 20 goal 40 assist two way center in the NHL. People saying he's just Kasper but a righty are full of shit. They're quite different players. And there's no such thing as too many centers.

Just Kasper? He's lucky if he's Kasper.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

#8 on my board, so I will be enthusiastic about him at #9.

He is a really complete player and drove a ton of offense on a bad team.

 

[lilidk]

Just Kasper? He's lucky if he's Kasper.

Kasper is so underated

 

[Pavels Dog]

They are the same types of player. Decently sized two-way centers with plus skating and high compete but questions about ultimate offensive upside. Now, that's a great player to have. But we don't need to draft that player every year. We picked him last year. Lets try something else.

If you draft those guys every year, one will end up having way more offense than you thought. It's not a bad profile to target.

 

[Vector Cereal]

Would be very happy with Danielson here. I think he'll land somewhere from 6-8 on my final list.

As for how he fits in with the team when we contend, I'd agree with the above posts about how we may have missed the boat on building a roster with top line-heavy elite forward talent.

I think it's best to consider how we want to ice a team that has a deep, balanced attack with high-end defense, and good coaching. A 1-2-3 of Larkin-Danielson-Kasper is probably very good. To not make any outlandish player comparables, I can reasonably see Danielson being a Josh Norris type center (Pronman has Elias Lindholm), and I believe my previous comparable on Kasper was Schenn, but Bennett probably fits too.

Pick 17(E.g. Barlow) Larkin Raymond
Ras Norris(Danielson) Mazur
Copp Schenn(Kasper) Berggren
Soderblom Veleno Kubalik

Once you factor in our D-core projecting to be one of the best in the league, this is a group that can absolutely win a cup in a Trotz-type system.

 

[norrisnick]

If you draft those guys every year, one will end up having way more offense than you thought. It's not a bad profile to target.

And if you draft offensive projects every year one will end up being more well rounded than you thought. It's also not a bad profile to target.

 

[Pavels Dog]

And if you draft offensive projects every year one will end up being more well rounded than you thought. It's also not a bad profile to target.

True, but those guys can usually be targeted a little later in the draft. Guys who have size, decent skating, some skill and project as centers are astronomically difficult to find outside the top 10-15 of the draft.
That's why it's probably more realistic to get Danielson at 9 and Perreault/Benson at 17 than the other way around.