View Single Post
02-01-2013, 12:18 PM
Registered User
Barnaby's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem I have with this concept of "take more risks" is that people never cite the busts when they're talking about "risk" in general. Sure, taking a risk on Giroux would have been great, but what if they had taken a risk on Zagrapan or Bourret in the 05 draft? Both looked like tremendous boom potential guys, and we took a reliable, stay-at-home d-man with a solid pedigree. That risk could have set this franchise back a ton.

Taking Sanguinetti was the right play at the time. He was billed as a potential top-pairing guy who could QB a PP and put up 50+ points per year. The organization thought that in back-to-back years they had drafted their defensive cornerstones for the next decade. Sangs wasn't a 50-50 shot of making the NHL. He was a highly touted offensive guy who had huge holes in his defensive game.

Sometimes taking the BPA is exactly what you need to do. People advocate risk in drafting, and I all I ever read about is how we messed up by taking a risk on McIlrath and passing on the higher ranked Tarasenko and Fowler. Let's be honest here: What people really want are more sexy, high-offensive potential selections in the first round, and they're upset that our risk taking in the past hasn't really panned out.

We went "high risk" on Jessiman and it was a disaster and set us back several years. You can be risky all you want, but nobody will commend you for it until you start taking the right risks. Risks like taking a big, speedy kid out of NE-Prep who had never faced anything beyond HS competition. Taking a kid out of Shattuck in the mid 2nd round even though he was pegged for the 3rd round because he wasn't the best skater. Taking a risk in 2008 on a kid who had the potential to be as good as the "big four" defensemen in his draft year, but had huge holes in his defensive game and concerns about his work ethic. Another risk in 2011 on a kid who had half of a good year offensively in the USNTDP and one stellar U-18 to his credit. Why aren't we satisfied with those risks? Hell, those risks have laid the groundwork for the future of this franchise.
This. This. 1000 X this.

"... but... but... we didn't draft Giroux..."

Enough already... and these percentages people are placing on guys is a joke "50% chance for s star, 75% for a guy who will play - gotta roll the dice..." - How about we let our experienced talent evaluators evaluate. They've made some mistakes, but they've done pretty well so far.

Barnaby is offline   Reply With Quote