Thread: Top End Talent
View Single Post
Old
05-17-2008, 10:55 AM
  #31
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
If I knew that Prucha was considered a late round gem I would have never said that the Rangers haven't drafted lots of late round gems.
He was including semi-precious stones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
To me, a gem is an excellent NHL player. Dawes and Callahan might end up there but they ain't that now.
And this gets to the heart of the issue. How do we define termes like "gem" and "excellent" or even "late-round"? Personally I wouldn't say either Dawes or Callahan has a chance of "excellence" in this league. Can they be "good" or even "very good" players? I think so. But until a common defintitoin is found, anyone can make the claim that the Rangers are stockpiled with "late round gems."

When I think of "late round gem" I'm thinking a player drafted after the 3rd round who is a truly excellent player in the league, "excellent" meaning one of the top 5-8 at his position. That's a "gem." Something that has great value. Do Dawes or Callahan have "great value" say, as trading chips?

For the Blueshirts that essentially means Lundqvist.


Last edited by dedalus: 05-17-2008 at 11:02 AM.
dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote