View Single Post
07-18-2012, 12:42 AM
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by jaster View Post
Most of those rookies were higher caliber than our prospects though. More skilled and/or physically mature. Often top-20 picks. It's not really a fair comparison. I agree with you on Smith, but for a guy like Nyquist, for example, he needed that 3rd college year to get stronger, he even said so himself. As for Kindl, Tatar, and Andersson, I'm not convinced any of them are good enough to say they should have moved along faster than they have. Maybe Tatar.
I don't agree.
Adam Henrique. 3rd round pick. 44 points in his draft year. 77 points in his fourth year of junior. 50 points as an AHL rookie. 50 points as 22 year old NHL rookie.
Andrew Shaw drafted as an overager at 20 years old. Never scored more than 50 points in the OHL. Scores 23 points in 38 AHL games and makes a decent contribution at the NHL level (identical to his AHL stats).

it doesn't seem to matter much if you're 10th overall like Cody Hodgson or a third rounder like Henrique.

This notion that you need to light up the AHL is completely and utterly bogus.

Mursak should have been in the NHL in 2010-11. Instead, we wasted him for a year so we could have Modano and Holmstrom et al.

Nyquist was 20 and nearly 21 at the end of his sophomore year at Maine. There was no need for him to go back to college after that.

We've got NHL talent in our system. And we keep bottle necking it.

If we're bottlenecking it for elite top sixers or even high caliber bottom sixers, I am all for it.

But if we're bottlenecking it to pay Sammuelsson $3M a year and to extent Bertuzzi for two more years, and for decent depth guys like Miller... I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

RedWingsNow* is offline