Thread: Speculation: Wild/Bos
View Single Post
06-16-2010, 01:53 AM
State of Hockey
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,373
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
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 you want a playmaking center or a goalscorer?
I know I had Johansen listed twice. That was my plan. It just turned out to confuse people though, sorry.

Granlund and Skinner aren't that close in the current TSN rankings. for example, Skinner wasn't listed on any scouts top-10. Doesn't mean he won't be near the top-10 at the draft, it just means he was not top-10 material yet. Meanwhile Granlund was an HM for the top-10. And don't get started on the logic junk. 1 + 2 =/= 4.

Two months ago Skinner's tear was mostly complete. Will he move up in the pre-draft rankings? Maybe, but it won't be because he's suddenly more skilled. That's key. I want the better player, period. At #9 I don't think it will be either of them, but I'll put my money on Granlund if I had to.

Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
- Johansen is WORTH being mentioned in the 3 worst prospects at 9??? Can you really be worth the worst?

- #9 overall compared to what draft? #9 overall in the 2003 draft has a high success rate. #9 overall in the 1999 draft has a low success rate. My point is, every draft is different, you can't just look at the number overall. This draft is supposed to be deep of talent so I rather choose a safer pick than a Russian.
I said "like the 3 worst prospects", not "3 worst prospects". There's a difference. He's not worth the worst. I have him right around #9, where most do.

#9 in any draft is so-so. But even that so-so is better than whatever pick we would trade down to. That's the point I'm after.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote