HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Who should the Wild select as their draft pick?

View Poll Results: Who should the Wild select?
Ryan Johansen 2 6.90%
Derek Forbort 1 3.45%
Jeff Skinner 1 3.45%
Nick Bjugstad 1 3.45%
Brett Connolly 8 27.59%
Nino Niederreiter 8 27.59%
Tyler Pitlick 0 0%
Alex Burmistrov 2 6.90%
Mikael Granlund 1 3.45%
Jack Campbell 2 6.90%
Other 3 10.34%
No One, Trade it! 0 0%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-24-2010, 11:17 PM
  #26
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Squirts View Post
Mind if I ask why?
Because at 9 I don't see a lot of difference between the players that will likely be there. Thus I think trading down and targeting Bjugstad will come out as greater value in the end.

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:26 PM
  #27
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
yes, i read russo's stuff. i also read that the wild would be taking the best player available regardless of position. if campbell is still on the board (because, say, another team is drafting purely for positional need or has a different BPA list) and Campbell happens to be the next on the Wild's list, they'll take him. Best player in the sense they are using it means "most likely to succeed at their position" not "best player suited to what we need right now."

it's really useless to speculate (my gripe about the BPA being vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless phrase) because it's unlikely the Wild will publicly post their list even after the fact. Like i've said before--they'll just say whoever they drafted was the best player available at the time. I really don't think they will take Campbell, but I do believe if he's there at 9 he is a more solid (safe) bet than most everyone that would be left.
I think its a mix of both. You go for BPA but then if theres a tie between prospects, position plays a role. I don't think Wild fans have much to worry about since at #9, there will be alot of prospects even in skill and alot of them are forwards.

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:27 PM
  #28
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
I'd love to see Connolly drop to us at #9, I think we could get a real steal there. Huge need would be filled if we were able to get him. If here were not there, I'd like to see us take a chance on Tarasenko, he could be really good.

mnwildgophers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:31 PM
  #29
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
I think its a mix of both. You go for BPA but then if theres a tie between prospects, position plays a role. I don't think Wild fans have much to worry about since at #9, there will be alot of prospects even in skill and alot of them are forwards.
IMO too many with too little difference in value. That, IMO, de-values the #9 pick.

Again, that's why I'd rather trade down if they can.

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:40 PM
  #30
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
IMO too many with too little difference in value. That, IMO, de-values the #9 pick.

Again, that's why I'd rather trade down if they can.
I like the idea of moving down and picking up a few extra picks. However, if the Wild like a certain forward more than another, I will still support that decision. At #9, we will be picking first of that group of players (group after the Nino, Connolly group) which includes Burmistrov, Skinner, Bjugstad, Johansen etc etc.

Two thoughts come to mind.
#1. Do we want to select first of the group or let other teams determine who we pick?

#2. If we think we can get any of these players later on and still be happy, won't other teams have the same idea and become reluctant to trade up? If thats the case, the only teams that would want to trade with us is the teams picking from the group after the Burmistrov, Skinner, Johansen, Bjugstad group (which is Howden, Toffoli, Bennett, Nelson). Will we be comfortable doing that?

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:49 PM
  #31
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
You are forgetting, not all teams value the same players the same amount. One team may covet one player much more than another, and also may fear that player will not be on the board when they pick.

Just because your player is there, and you get the first pick of the group doesn't mean that's where that player should be taken. You can to try to get the best value out of your pick possible in the draft. That's how teams make "ok" drafts into "great" ones.

Obviously it's not a given that trading down into the range needed is even possible, which is why I said "if they can" in the first place.

In that case, a decision has to be made... but as I said, I'm not thrilled with any of the options likely there if the Wild make the selection at #9. I'd be happy with several of them at a lower pick though.

Again, this is JMO.

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:54 PM
  #32
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
You are forgetting, not all teams value the same players the same amount. One team may covet one player much more than another, and also may fear that player will not be on the board when they pick.

Just because your player is there, and you get the first pick of the group doesn't mean that's where that player should be taken. You can to try to get the best value out of your pick possible in the draft. That's how teams make "ok" drafts into "great" ones.

Obviously it's not a given that trading down into the range needed is even possible, which is why I said "if they can" in the first place.

In that case, a decision has to be made... but as I said, I'm not thrilled with any of the options likely there if the Wild make the selection at #9. I'd be happy with several of them at a lower pick though.

Again, this is JMO.
I think they could get maybe a 2nd or 3rd rounder in addition to moving a couple spots back in the draft, but I honestly would rather see us take a Skinner, Burmistrov or Tarasenko than trade down to try to grab a Bjugstad or some players on that tier.

Would it be worth it? I don't know as I think Burmistrov, Skinner, or Tarasenko tier might be better than getting a Bjugstad and another 3rd. We do need all the prospects possible, but is it better to have quantity or how much should we lean on quality? It's a tough call.

mnwildgophers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:54 PM
  #33
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
You are forgetting, not all teams value the same players the same amount. One team may covet one player much more than another, and also may fear that player will not be on the board when they pick.

Just because your player is there, and you get the first pick of the group doesn't mean that's where that player should be taken. You can to try to get the best value out of your pick possible in the draft. That's how teams make "ok" drafts into "great" ones.

Obviously it's not a given that trading down into the range needed is even possible, which is why I said "if they can" in the first place.

In that case, a decision has to be made... but as I said, I'm not thrilled with any of the options likely there if the Wild make the selection at #9. I'd be happy with several of them at a lower pick though.

Again, this is JMO.
Yes, but that also applies to us I figured. We may covet some player more than others and in the 2010 draft, anything can happen since its so deep.

I mean, I definately like the idea of moving down and collecting a few extra picks, since we have a terrible prospect pool. BUT, I wouldn't be surprised if the Wild decide not to in fear they will miss out on the player they want the most and as they have the first pick of that group. You know that say, "better safe than sorry"?

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:55 PM
  #34
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,226
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post

Two thoughts come to mind.
#1. Do we want to select first of the group or let other teams determine who we pick?

#2. If we think we can get any of these players later on and still be happy, won't other teams have the same idea and become reluctant to trade up? If thats the case, the only teams that would want to trade with us is the teams picking from the group after the Burmistrov, Skinner, Johansen, Bjugstad group (which is Howden, Toffoli, Bennett, Nelson). Will we be comfortable doing that?
if we have all of those players ~ even with each other it doesn't really matter who picks whom if we're sitting inside the range somewhere. Other teams in our range might have the same read on the situation or they might have more intelligence on who wants whom. #12 pick could know that #10 is going to steal their favored player (in that group) and so would want to jump them to get him. if #10 sees us talking to #13 and gets suspicious, they might be willing to offer us a better deal.

the magic of draft day! Part of the fun for GMs is trying to figure out who the other team is really coveting. At least that would be part of the fun for me if I were there.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 12:10 AM
  #35
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Because at 9 I don't see a lot of difference between the players that will likely be there. Thus I think trading down and targeting Bjugstad will come out as greater value in the end.
There's a considerable gap between Bjugstad and the players talked about around #9.

And seriously, why in the world would you want Bjugstad? He's clearly not on the same tier as the top-10, and the history of Minnesota high school players is downright terrible.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 12:12 AM
  #36
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
Yes, but that also applies to us I figured. We may covet some player more than others and in the 2010 draft, anything can happen since its so deep.

I mean, I definately like the idea of moving down and collecting a few extra picks, since we have a terrible prospect pool. BUT, I wouldn't be surprised if the Wild decide not to in fear they will miss out on the player they want the most and as they have the first pick of that group. You know that say, "better safe than sorry"?
You're right, it could apply to us, but this thread is about what our opinions are on the situation, and my opinion is, it would be best to trade down if possible.

That's the point of this thread isn't it? What do WE think the Wild should do?

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 12:16 AM
  #37
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
There's a considerable gap between Bjugstad and the players talked about around #9.

And seriously, why in the world would you want Bjugstad? He's clearly not on the same tier as the top-10, and the history of Minnesota high school players is downright terrible.
Yea, TJ Oshie and Blake Wheeler are playing horribly in the NHL these days...

RECENT history isn't against Minnesota HS players at all. Yes, in the 90's and early this decade the talent was thin, but times have changed in level of talent being produced here.

As for Bjugstad, the only reason he rates lower, is because he is considered more of a project. His ceiling is every bit as high if not higher than several in that same range of players expected to be available at #9.

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 12:19 AM
  #38
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
What would everyone think if we traded up to pick up Nino or Connolly and gave up our 3rd in the process of moving up?

I see trading down the most likely scenario, but I just can't see us moving up to take them.

mnwildgophers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 12:49 AM
  #39
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Yea, TJ Oshie and Blake Wheeler are playing horribly in the NHL these days...

RECENT history isn't against Minnesota HS players at all. Yes, in the 90's and early this decade the talent was thin, but times have changed in level of talent being produced here.

As for Bjugstad, the only reason he rates lower, is because he is considered more of a project. His ceiling is every bit as high if not higher than several in that same range of players expected to be available at #9.
Agreed. Bjugstad offers a very intriguing package of size, skill, speed and character. He belongs in the group of prospects that include Burmistrov, Taransenko and Skinner. If theres a team that is willing to pick a high school prospect, I wouldn't be surprised seeing Bjugstad within the 10-15 range.

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 12:55 AM
  #40
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Just to play devil's advocate regarding Campbell, who's to say we don't draft him and then eventually move Backstrom later on down the line (like 2 years from now at the deadline) and pick up pretty good return of assets then? I have no idea who we're going to take but just because we take a goalie in the first round doesn't mean that we can't still get help up front out of it.

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:00 AM
  #41
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Yea, TJ Oshie and Blake Wheeler are playing horribly in the NHL these days...

RECENT history isn't against Minnesota HS players at all. Yes, in the 90's and early this decade the talent was thin, but times have changed in level of talent being produced here.

As for Bjugstad, the only reason he rates lower, is because he is considered more of a project. His ceiling is every bit as high if not higher than several in that same range of players expected to be available at #9.
Wheeler? He's been a disappointment. He's evidence to why Minnesota players are overrated! You can throw Oshie in there too. Good player for the draft position, but he's not lived up to previous expectations either. Zach Parise and Phil Kessel are the only 1st-line Minnesota-born or Minnesota-developed players in the NHL. After all those drafted, there's not much to be elated about. If you want a franchise player, don't expect it from here. If you think recent history of FOR Minnesota, it's homerism.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:05 AM
  #42
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifer View Post
Just to play devil's advocate regarding Campbell, who's to say we don't draft him and then eventually move Backstrom later on down the line (like 2 years from now at the deadline) and pick up pretty good return of assets then? I have no idea who we're going to take but just because we take a goalie in the first round doesn't mean that we can't still get help up front out of it.
Thats were the BPA debate comes in. But IMO, when ur team has a weak prospect pool, they should focus on balancing it out instead of just doing BPA. I personally would like to know my team has prospects coming from the ranks to fill every position.

But then, I'm also for BPA, if that prospect is clearly better than another. But that is mostly not the case this year as at #9, there are all even. IMO, Campbell is a tier above those guys at #9, and because he's not, I would start to add position into the decision making process

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:08 AM
  #43
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
Thats were the BPA debate comes in. But IMO, when ur team has a weak prospect pool, they should focus on balancing it out instead of just doing BPA. I personally would like to know my team has prospects coming from the ranks to fill every position.

But then, I'm also for BPA, if that prospect is clearly better than another. But that is mostly not the case this year as at #9, there are all even. IMO, Campbell is a tier above those guys at #9, and because he's not, I would start to add position into the decision making process
Fair enough. I guess I just feel that additions can be made many other ways. Look at what Fletcher did with college free agents this year. I'm not by any means saying that any of them are going to even be noticeable NHL players but they certainly are additions to the depth of the organization and create competition for NHL roster spots. Plus, it's clear that we're pretty much giving up on Harding starting for this team. We're going to need a goalie when Backstrom's contract is done. That should be pretty much right around the time Hackett and Campbell are blossoming.

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:20 AM
  #44
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
As much I like Campbell as a player, I do not like taking goalies in the 1st round. Even the 2nd is iffy. Goaltender is the easiest position to get from late in the draft, and top goalies draft picks aren't locks by any means. If take a look at the best goalies in the league, most come from late in the draft or undrafted altogether. Skaters are another story. There's a linear progression.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:28 AM
  #45
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Wheeler? He's been a disappointment. He's evidence to why Minnesota players are overrated! You can throw Oshie in there too. Good player for the draft position, but he's not lived up to previous expectations either. Zach Parise and Phil Kessel are the only 1st-line Minnesota-born or Minnesota-developed players in the NHL. After all those drafted, there's not much to be elated about. If you want a franchise player, don't expect it from here. If you think recent history of FOR Minnesota, it's homerism.
Paul Martin
Tom Gilbert
Alex Goligoski
Erik Johnson
Matt Niskanen
Jamie Langenbrunner
Jordan Leopold

Do these guys count?
Peter Mueller
Dustin Byfuglien

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:28 AM
  #46
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
IMO too many with too little difference in value. That, IMO, de-values the #9 pick.

Again, that's why I'd rather trade down if they can.
I would too unless there's a player within reason who the team holds high enough in regards to pick. And I'd like to think that's not the case but it's a shot in the dark because this is the first draft where GMCF is completely running the show

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
There's a considerable gap between Bjugstad and the players talked about around #9.

And seriously, why in the world would you want Bjugstad? He's clearly not on the same tier as the top-10, and the history of Minnesota high school players is downright terrible.
No the history of Minnesota HS players is that they are boom-bust gambles. That's the problem with trying to evaluate talent out of a league with tons of variation in terms of competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Wheeler? He's been a disappointment. He's evidence to why Minnesota players are overrated! You can throw Oshie in there too. Good player for the draft position, but he's not lived up to previous expectations either. Zach Parise and Phil Kessel are the only 1st-line Minnesota-born or Minnesota-developed players in the NHL. After all those drafted, there's not much to be elated about. If you want a franchise player, don't expect it from here. If you think recent history of FOR Minnesota, it's homerism.
If you are counting Kessel and his year at the U, I'm counting this kid:


And this one:


So there's four without discussing defense. Plus there's maybe five if the Islanders actually have a first line. And six if you count this guy:



Yay provincialism!

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:36 AM
  #47
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
As much I like Campbell as a player, I do not like taking goalies in the 1st round. Even the 2nd is iffy. Goaltender is the easiest position to get from late in the draft, and top goalies draft picks aren't locks by any means. If take a look at the best goalies in the league, most come from late in the draft or undrafted altogether. Skaters are another story. There's a linear progression.
I don't think thats exactly true. I think its because a goalie's development is so hard to guage, it becomes a crapshoot, 1st or 7th round. So I don't think its necessarily 'easier' to get late in the draft as it is harder to predict. I know I'm might be splitting hairs here but I think picking goalies early is fine but as long as there is very few question marks and his skills undeniable.

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 01:36 AM
  #48
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Yea, TJ Oshie and Blake Wheeler are playing horribly in the NHL these days...
How recent?

Let's do 2000-2008 (as in 08 needs to be signed this year, so we got a good basis going) and let's do two rounds:

2000
Paul Martin - Great pick

2001
Ed Caron - Bust
Noah Welch - Scrub

2002
Mike Morris - Bust
Dan Sprang - Bust

2003
Brian Boyle - Scrub
Matt Smaby - Scrub
John Dohetry - Bust

2004
Blake Wheeler - Stud
Cory Schneider - Unknown (goalie sooo)
Chris Bourque - Bust

2005
TJ Oshie - Stud
Matt Niskanen - Stud
Taylor Chorney - Stud
Michael Gergen - Bust

2006
David Fischer - Bust
Carl Sneep - Unknown (4 years in college)

2007
Ryan McDonagh - Bust (I believe)

After that it gets hazy...

The problem with high school talent is projecting where they will go at the next level. They might have the size, the skills, and the talent at that level, but it's the projection to the next two levels that really counts.

If we took Bjugstad at let's say the 15th pick, are Wild fans going to be patient for him to stay in school for 4 years and possibly a year in the minors? So 5 years from now?

Minnesota needs talent now. Yes they do need talent in the future as well but that is what lower draft picks are used for is to let some of the unrefined players develop slower.

As for the player, if Nino is there. Take him. We've made the mistake of letting one foreign based talent from a non-hockey country slip by us and that hurt. Connelly is intriguing.

But overall Minnesota needs to pick the best player available. With our thin depth, Minnesota cannot be choosy on who they pick. A defenseman might take a few more years to develop (look at Cuma and Scandella, both of who will not make it till probably late 10-11, maybe early for one but both shouldn't see the ice until late 10-11 or even 11-12, almost 3 years after they were picked).

So if they believe a defenseman is the best pick, pick them. Look at Nashville.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 02:28 AM
  #49
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
Paul Martin
Tom Gilbert
Alex Goligoski
Erik Johnson
Matt Niskanen
Jamie Langenbrunner
Jordan Leopold

Do these guys count?
Peter Mueller
Dustin Byfuglien
He's already calling Wheeler a disappointment when he's played only 2 seasons with goal totals of 21 and 18... that shows he's completely unreasonable about the subject.

Yet there are many who still think Bouchard is a great player when he's played for 6 seasons (won't even count this last one), and he hasn't scored 18 goals or more since 06-07.

I'd trade Bouchard for Wheeler straight up if Boston was dumb enough!

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2010, 02:31 AM
  #50
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,175
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
If we took Bjugstad at let's say the 15th pick, are Wild fans going to be patient for him to stay in school for 4 years and possibly a year in the minors? So 5 years from now?

Minnesota needs talent now. Yes they do need talent in the future as well but that is what lower draft picks are used for is to let some of the unrefined players develop slower.
You don't draft for a player to play today when you are drafting at #9. You can expect a player for today if you are in the top 3, but not at #9. ANYONE they pick is likely 2-3yrs away... Bjugstad just LOOKS to be further away due to his rail thin size ATM. That could easily change though as well. I don't think it will take 5yrs for Bjugstad to reach the NHL myself.

TaLoN is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.