Thanks for the review, and sorry for the delay of my response.
Coaching:
I've been on the Barry Trotz bandwagon for a long time. I think I said he was the best coach in the NHL back in 2012. For me, he's proven to be the #1 modern coach. He's also a well-rounded coach. He instils a military-style structure of discipline and accountability, but he is also very popular among his players due to his desire to build consensus in the room. He's not in the elite group of Bowman, Blake, Patrick, and Tarasov. I'm not sure I'd put any other coach ahead of Trotz by any significant distance.
I like Barry Trotz too at this point. I picked him primarily because I had Bobby Hull, which is the closest thing to Alex Ovechkin in a sense, and Trotz was the one who managed to win with him. Another reason is that my team is very physical and Trotz fits well with that.
First Line:
Bobby Hull is an interesting player to build around. He has a reputation as almost a one-man-show, though it's tough to really say. Was he so puck dominant because of his line mates, or was he given those line mates because of his style? Kind of a chicken and egg scenario. If I recall, he and Phil Esposito had pretty good chemistry when they played together. Despite all that, Hull is easily the best offensive LWer of all time, and maybe the best goalscorer of any position.
I love the combination with Milt Schmidt. He's a player who can contribute in any way. If Hull needs the puck, Schmidt doesn't. If Hull can work well with others, Schmidt can do that too. I'm not sure I like Blake Wheeler on this line. Playmaking wingers need the puck to do their thing. While I don't think Hull HAS to have the puck, he's definitely the guy you want to have it. I think - despite the goalscorere / playmaker dynamic - Hull and Wheeler clash in effectiveness.
I don't see Hull as a one-man show. I think he was a pretty good playmaker, and better defensively than he is given credit for. That's not to say he didn't make a lot of individual rushes, but this facet has been overblowned IMO. He and Esposito indeed had good chemistry, and I saw it with my own eyes watching an entire game earlier this year. Another underrated side of Hull is that he was quite physical, so he brings that that many other top wingers don't.
I agree Blake Wheeler looks like an eyesore on that line, but my thinking is that he's a 3rd-wheeler(!) and not important enough to "get in the way" of the Hull-Schmidt combination. I expect him to make some plays deep in the offensive zone and to contribute to fatigue the defense with his size, but not much more.
I guess it's my fault for being so careless in letting JohnnyEngine steal Rick Middleton from me, something that would never have happened when I was in my "prime" as an ATD GM. I have gotten too laissez-faire and careless with such details and it cost me.
If Wheeler becomes too problematic, Trotz can always recreates a Kraut-on-steroids-line with Dumart-Schmidt-Kane, as Patrick Kane feels like a similar but better version of Bobby Bauer to me. Then I'd go with Hull-Ullman-Wheeler. Or I can always just put Dave Taylor on my 1st line, where he will be a quiet contributor without making any wave. All this to say, there are options available to Trotz to juggle the lines.
Second Line:
Love Norm Ullman. Like Schmidt, he can play whatever role you want on the line. Patrick Kane is starting to really creep up the all-time RW list. He's an excellent line-driving offensive player. He and Ullman should work really well together. Dumart is a decent glue guy, though I'm not sure how much offense he will contribute.
Overall, the Kane-Ullman combo should be able to score well for a second line. Ullman and Dumart make it really good defensively and tough to play against.
I feel this is my team's biggest strenght. Ullman is a borderline 1C, especially at even-strenght, and like you said Kane is creeping up the all-time RW list. Taking into account his half-season, he seems pretty much in the Geoffrion ballpark, making him a strong 1st line RWer. I guess Dumart's offense will be a residue of what the Ullman-Kane combo can generate, while providing physicality and defense to support Ullman's all-around game.
Third Line:
Roenick brings a high energy and good offensive skill for a 3rd line. Giroux scores so much on the PP, I'm not sure exactly how much he brings at ES. Taylor seems like a standard glue guy for a 3rd line.
Overall, depending on your view of Giroux at ES, this line could be pretty bland, not weak, but not great.
I haven't checked around but value-wise Giroux-Roenick-Taylor seems above-average for a 3rd line, though maybe I'm wrong. Even if Giroux is a PP specialist, he's still talented enough to play on 3rd line I would say. One thing I like about that line is it brings a bit of everything; physicality, offense, defense.
Fourth Line:
I really like Ken Mosdell and Jerry Toppazizni. Both guys are strong defensively, both guys are big boys. Neither is an offensive blackhole either. Not sure I like Davidson in a draft this small.
I drafted Davidson for his physicality, keeping in mind I have many divisional reasons to do so, one of which is Gordie Howe (but not saying Davidson is gonna shadow him at all, just that he can *handle* him at least), another is to pound on Pierre Pilote and wear him out continuously with Hull, Dumart and Davidson at LW, and Dumart, Ullman, Roenick and Mosdell at center. Pilote was known to get tired in the playoffs facing physically imposing opponents.
First Pairing:
I'm a huge fan of Sprague Cleghorn - I think he's in the mix for a top-10 defenseman. Totally well-rounded, though a little bit insane. Art Coulter is solid defensively, but I think he's a pretty weak #2.
I'm with you on Cleghorn, and I voted him high on the Top 100 Projects. I have him as Chelios' equal, except that he was more indisciplined (but even that should be quantified one day, as to what it actually cost to his team). Coulter is indeed a weak #2, but he gives me Eddie Gerard vibes with his excellent defense and leadership, so figured he'd fit well with Sprague.
Second Pairing:
Harry Cameron is a good offensive defenseman, though with warts. I think you've got enough leadership to keep him in check. Babe Siebert is a tricky read. I'm really not sure how to gauge him at all.
Since I had a weak #2, I drafted two high-end #3 for my second pairing, basically Coulter, Cameron and Siebert are all high-end #3Ds (and I have no pure #2). Cameron has his warts but at least it's not defense. Cameron was hard to coach and undisciplined off-the-ice, but I surrounded him with three known leaders on the Top 4 of my blueline, with all of Cleghorn, Coulter and Siebert wearing letters. Hopefully that will get him straightened out.
I agree Siebert is a tough read, short peak, but I liked his all-aroundness and his physicality besides Cameron. I guess I see Siebert as a two-way defenseman with a very physical game, who also played LW a lot. Basically... he's a lite version of Dit Clapper???
Goaltending:
Hainsworth is one of the weakest starters in this draft. Kipprusoff is a solid back-up.
Fair
PP:
That first unit is just horrifying. Take penalties at your own risk!
PK:
I'm not sure how good Siebert here. Maybe you can educate me, since I've had a hard time actually figuring out how good he is.
With my special unit, something I must say is that ideally Cleghorn would be an asset on both 1st units, but here I play him on the 2nd units of both PP and PK for different reasons:
On PP, I had Hull as a LH shot and since you can't beat that, I picked Cameron as a RH shot, relegating Cleghorn to the 2nd unit where he is overqualified. On the PK, since he's the most likely to get penalized, I didn't want to rely on him.
Siebert: My reasoning is that I'll be facing Howe but especially Jean Béliveau on the PK, so I really needed PKers that could handle his size in front of the net. I think I accomplished that with Coulter, Siebert and Cleghorn, who were all tall and strong. I still see Coulter as my top PKer though.
Thanks for the review again, it was fair and I appreciate it.
