HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Speculation: Wild/Bos (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=786499)

North Metro Peewees 06-14-2010 01:23 PM

Wild/Bos
 
I'm betting since Boston wants to move into the top 10 the Wild will trade the #9 pick for picks #15 and #32. I'm basing this off statements made by Peter Chiarelli that he wants one of the puck moving defenseman.

I believe the only way this doesn't happen is if a player the Wild project much higher for some reason falls to them. I'm thinking someone like Connelly or El Nino.

Hey, maybe CF can do what he did last year and move down and then decide 6 months later that he wants to trade the guy he just drafted for a defenseman who is too slow to play significant minutes. Watching Cam Barker is like watching Harold Snepsts without the toughness.

Jarick 06-14-2010 01:29 PM

Watch Cam Barker play on two good feet and you might see something different.

North Metro Peewees 06-14-2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 26283425)
Watch Cam Barker play on two good feet and you might see something different.

What your saying he has a foot injury? First anyone has mentioned this.

rynryn 06-14-2010 01:37 PM

i will not begrudge you your optimism, Jar, but one of the common complaints I've read about Barker from Chicago fans was he is slow. I fear his lack of mobility isn't due to the ankle but rather a skating deficiency. But one thing is certain--he can only get better in that regard. I still don't mind that trade in the slightest even if he wasn't what I was expecting.

bozak911 06-14-2010 01:37 PM

I would be fine with that trade.

My worst fear is that GMCF drafts Bjustad with #9. While I don't think drafting Bjustad overall is a bad thing, I just don't think he warrants being that high. At #15, it would make more sense, although, I think he should go around #20.

In an ideal world, I would hope GMCF trades the #9 to move lower, pick up a 2nd and then trades down again to around 20 and picks up a 3rd.

North Metro Peewees 06-14-2010 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26283575)
I would be fine with that trade.

My worst fear is that GMCF drafts Bjustad with #9. While I don't think drafting Bjustad overall is a bad thing, I just don't think he warrants being that high. At #15, it would make more sense, although, I think he should go around #20.

In an ideal world, I would hope GMCF trades the #9 to move lower, pick up a 2nd and then trades down again to around 20 and picks up a 3rd.

All I can say is Viking draft (I believe 1982) when they deal a 1st rounder for 2-2nd's and took Jarvis Redwine and Mardye McDole. OUCH!

Jarick 06-14-2010 03:39 PM

I can't say for sure as I didn't watch him in Chicago, but I do know he had an ankle injury and got it fixed after the season ended. And I know that skating on a bad foot can certainly kill your mobility. And digging around looking for scouting reports from his draft days, he wasn't a bad skater at all.

But I suppose it may be better to think he's a flop and have him surprise you than to think he's amazing and have him disappoint you. I think he'll be a good top four defenseman for the Wild rather than a victim of the numbers game in Chicago...but he's going to have to bust his ass if he wants to stay on that top pairing. We'll see what he's made of soon enough.

And on that note, I'm not overly worried about next year's roster. I expect this team to do nothing, so I just want to see the young players develop and do well, just like I said last year. Problem is, all of the young players sucked or got injured last year too (Sheppard, Pouliot, Harding, Bouchard, Burns).

Timothy Freitag 06-14-2010 04:02 PM

Barker's injury details.

State of Hockey 06-14-2010 06:32 PM

We'll see how it goes on draft day, but I'm more inclined to trade up in this draft. Right now at #9 I see us on the edge of grabbing a "faller". #15 is too far back.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 26283425)
Watch Cam Barker play on two good feet and you might see something different.

That means he's had a bad foot his entire career.

HamiltonOHL 06-14-2010 10:36 PM

To me it depends on who is still at 9.... As CF i think that if their player or players they like are still on the board who knows what could happen... I agree if the players CF likes like Connolly and such arent avail i would def trade down to 15 bc then we would still have a 1st round pick but now we would also have 3 2nd round picks...

Which comes to my next point... If your CF do you pull a Howson from last draft and take 4 draft picks from a team to move from 15th to say 25th or 6th like NYI and Columbus did last yr with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th for 1st and 3rd?

Circulartheory 06-15-2010 03:52 AM

My answer would be "Hell yeah!"

Instead of a guy like Johansen, Skinner or Etem, we'll be getting Bjugstad and/or the Coyle, Nelson, Schawrtz, Galiev etc etc.

This draft is very deep and if we can get two prospects that are almost even in talent as the one, then why not?

mnwildgophers 06-15-2010 08:25 AM

It would be super hard to say no to additional 2 picks, and I think I'd have to take this deal. That's 2 pretty good picks in addition #39 and #56, we'd have a good shot of getting a couple of good players. On the other hand, where does the drop-off begin? Scouts speculate from anywhere 3-17 is where the next drop off begins. I'd be okay if we traded back and took a Watson while picking up another pick.

That being said, maybe we do just need to stay at #9 and see what forward drops to us.

Jarick 06-15-2010 09:29 AM

I'd love to see the Wild pick up another 1st round pick so we could MAYBE get two of Niederriter, Etem, Bjugstad, Skinner, Johanssen, Forbort, etc.

But it depends on who's on the board...if Nino is there at #9 I say get him. If we move down a few spots and it looks like one of Nino, Etem, Skinner, or Johanssen is going to be around, maybe that's not bad.

I just don't really think we can afford to move way down in the 1st and get another project.

State of Hockey 06-15-2010 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircularTheory (Post 26294331)
Instead of a guy like Johansen, Skinner or Etem, we'll be getting Bjugstad and/or the Coyle, Nelson, Schawrtz, Galiev etc etc.

This draft is very deep and if we can get two prospects that are almost even in talent as the one, then why not?

Johansen, Skinner, or Etem are like the three worst prospects we could get at #9. Instead think of Connolly, Nino, Tarasenko, Granlund, or Johansen. Bjugstad doesn't look so good anymore.

I'm all into stats and history, and even the deepest draft (2003) was falling off at #15. 2010 is not deep in comparison. And every draft at #32 is a crapshoot. It's quantity versus quality. Quantity isn't worth it in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnwildgophers (Post 26295310)
On the other hand, where does the drop-off begin? Scouts speculate from anywhere 3-17 is where the next drop off begins. I'd be okay if we traded back and took a Watson while picking up another pick.

There's a clear drop-off around #7-#10. It was that way months ago, and it's stayed that way. About 7 prospects have never been projected below the top-10. Then there's Johansen, Tarasenko, and Granlund - three which are almost always within the top-12. After those 10 prospects, it's anybody's game. That signifies a drop-off. Dropping to #15 could mean we miss any chance at just one. Staying at #9 guarantees us a chance.

Jbcraig1883 06-15-2010 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of Hockey (Post 26297767)
Johansen, Skinner, or Etem are like the three worst prospects we could get at #9. Instead think of Connolly, Nino, Tarasenko, Granlund, or Johansen. Bjugstad doesn't look so good anymore.

Johansen is probably a typo. But, how is Granlund better than Skinner? I use Granlund since he has the same knock that Skinner does, size and speed. The various drafting guides I have rank these two pretty close, with Granlund having the superior hockey sense and Skinner being the pure goal scorer that has a knack for finding open ice.

If you add up all of the pros/cons of all the players you mentioned, they are all pretty close with Connolly and Tarasenko having the higher reward, based on scouting reports.

With that said, Connolly could have possible hip problems...he's lost a year of development. Tarasenko has the Russian Factor. Johansen could have grown later than his peers and may have peaked at the right time, planning with Ross and Nino. Skinner might not have the size or speed to play in the NHL. Granlund might turn out to be PMB. Etem might turn out to be Nigel Dawes. All of them have question marks but all of them have 1st line potential.

Circulartheory 06-15-2010 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of Hockey (Post 26297767)
Johansen, Skinner, or Etem are like the three worst prospects we could get at #9. Instead think of Connolly, Nino, Tarasenko, Granlund, or Johansen. Bjugstad doesn't look so good anymore.

- Nino won't last till 9.
- I doubt Connolly will last till 9 either.
- I have the same opinion on Granlund. I have him being taken at #8.
- Tarasenko is no doubt talented but Russian factors does play in and I'll be more comfortable drafting a talented forward from somewhere else

- And no, the worst we could get at #9 would be Eero Elo...

- Skinner is a offensive forward who isn't great skater but he has some nice offensive skills that can't be ignore.

- Johansen is a fast riser, solid forward. Has evasive skating, even if not overly fast. Can beat defenders 1-on-1. But more of a playmaking forward, but at this point, any offensive forward will do

- Etem has everything. Offense, speed, character, not afraid etc. Has an awkward skating style but has offense and speed nonetheless.

- Bjugstad has a interesting package of shot, skill, size, strength, speed and character. While I prefer Etem, Bjugstad does sound interesting.

So I don't understand why you would say they are the three worst prospects at 9. They all offer different packages, but all intriguing ones. In the 2010 draft, 9-30 are so close, it'll be interesting to see what actually happens of draft day.

Jarick 06-15-2010 12:51 PM

I wrote in the other thread, but my preference would be Nino, Johansen, Etem, Granlund, Bjugstad, Skinner in that order.

Red Alberks 06-15-2010 03:22 PM

How about we just stay with our Top 10 pick and take a Top 10 talent?

firstroundbust 06-15-2010 04:04 PM

I'd love to see them grab Pitlick towards the back end of the 1st...

this providence 06-15-2010 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuceUNO (Post 26302408)
I'd love to see them grab Pitlick towards the back end of the 1st...

Agreed. Was one of the bright spots at Mankato last season.

I do also like Brock Nelson's game. He's another name who's often thrown around at the back end of the first round. He should develop a nice two way game at UND. Might be a good #2 center down the line provided he develops nicely. Great frame and good skating to fall back on as well.

GopherState 06-15-2010 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of Hockey (Post 26297767)
It's quantity versus quality. Quantity isn't worth it in this case.

I think that's a good debate as while quality isn't as important in the NHL as it is in the NBA (one or two stars make a NBA team regardless of scrubs), it is still important. Personally, I believe in building from the top and in the case of a poor prospect pool and young developing players, that would be accomplished by having a top prospect rather than two good prospects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuceUNO (Post 26302408)
I'd love to see them grab Pitlick towards the back end of the 1st...

If he drops into the second, I would jump on that so fast.

thestonedkoala 06-15-2010 05:37 PM

About Nino...I'm going to guess given his background, there is a chance he could slip to the 9th spot. I mean hell Kopitar slipped to the early teens.

State of Hockey 06-15-2010 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jocksta18 (Post 26298049)
Johansen is probably a typo. But, how is Granlund better than Skinner? I use Granlund since he has the same knock that Skinner does, size and speed. The various drafting guides I have rank these two pretty close, with Granlund having the superior hockey sense and Skinner being the pure goal scorer that has a knack for finding open ice.

Johansen is not a typo. I left him there because he's the only prospect of the three mentioned that was worth being in the mix.

Granlund is a better prospect because he's proven more. Simple as that. Granlund has been playing against men and has been a force. Scouts agree. I put a lot of stock into Bob McKenzie's contacts. Grandlund was clearly a better prospect, according to scouts, than Skinner just two months ago. Need more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircularTheory (Post 26298672)
- Nino won't last till 9.
- I doubt Connolly will last till 9 either.
- I have the same opinion on Granlund. I have him being taken at #8.
- Tarasenko is no doubt talented but Russian factors does play in and I'll be more comfortable drafting a talented forward from somewhere else

It doesn't matter if they don't fall to #9. The point is that they may fall to #9. Nino, for example, probably won't go top-5. That leaves about 3 teams that could grab him ahead of us. 3 isn't many. Trades, needs, etc. Anything can happen.

Tarasenko at #9 is fine. #9 overalls do not have a high success rate of being a top player, no matter how good they may seem to be right now. If you go for BPA, Tarasenko could very well be BPA. The Wild needs to take a darn risk for a change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 26298932)
I wrote in the other thread, but my preference would be Nino, Johansen, Etem, Granlund, Bjugstad, Skinner in that order.

If Hall/Seguin and the big three defensemen are gone like I expect, my order is Connolly, Tarasenko, Niederreiter, Johansen, Granlund, Burmistrov, and Skinner.

Jbcraig1883 06-15-2010 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of Hockey (Post 26304899)
Johansen is not a typo. I left him there because he's the only prospect of the three mentioned that was worth being in the mix.

Granlund is a better prospect because he's proven more. Simple as that. Granlund has been playing against men and has been a force. Scouts agree. I put a lot of stock into Bob McKenzie's contacts. Grandlund was clearly a better prospect, according to scouts, than Skinner just two months ago. Need more?

If you re-read your post, you'll see that you have Johansen listed twice. That is why I referred to the typo...

Secondly, it isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Both Skinner and Granlund appear in front and behind each other on many scouting reports, forums, quotes from scouts, etc. Mckenzie makes his list based on all of those combined so if he has Granlund higher, fine.
And to say he's proven more than Skinner means he should go 1 overall. He played against men. Taylor Hall did not. Therefore, based on your logic, that puts Granlund first.

Two months ago, the CHL playoffs weren't finished, Skinner had not yet completed his tear of 20 goals in the playoffs and the final rankings had not yet been released.

Granlund has been stated to have the best playmaking ability as well as top hockey IQ. Skinner has said to be one of the best goal scorers who never stops working. They both lack size and speed. It's really a toss up on potential...do you want a playmaking center or a goalscorer?

Circulartheory 06-15-2010 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Alberks (Post 26301644)
How about we just stay with our Top 10 pick and take a Top 10 talent?

Because in this draft, theres a Top 7, then everyone else.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.