HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2010 NHL Draft - Minnesota Wild Edition - VS

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-29-2010, 06:17 AM
  #801
thomast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Yeah, a proven center playing against kids. Sorry, but that's not my definition of a center, especially when he shows the ideal skill and playing style of a winger. Before we can say he's a proven center, he has to start by being one in SM-Liiga. It wasn't a good start by "making it easy" for him and starting him at wing. His center last year was the same size and only 21, and he was fine. Usually the trend from center to wing only gets stronger. So if center is successful for Granlund this year we can only hope that will translate to the next step in the NHL.
.
Poor argument that hes not proven center if he played center with the kids. Then every center who were drafted are unproven centers because they played against kids. Granlund have dominated 3years older in every level as a center. Next year he is number 1 center of HIFK. Center position is most natural to him and his defensive abilities would been waste as a winger. Did you guys even know how good he is in the defensive zone and he is superb PK killer. Granlund had +12 in IFK which was teams highest. Next season top 3 scorer in FEL and +20 pls . It would be nice to see granlund playing in those 2 games in helsinki with wild's.

thomast is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2010, 11:21 AM
  #802
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Since scouts are never right all the time, it's commonly counterproductive to "get your man" and burn up assets. The best teams will gauge the proceedings and sometimes trade down if they think they will still get their guy. It was interesting watching the "behind the scenes" coverage of the St. Louis Blues 2007 draft. Jarmo Kekalainen wasn't afraid to take the risk trading down for Lars Eller even though Eller was his man. It was a calculated decision that was right. Eller was still there for them. It seemed like this year Flahr had the "must get" attitude going in the 2nd round. It never worked out for DR, so I don't have my hopes up now either.

Comparing 2010 draft to 2007 is not logical to support that we should have traded down to get the guy we wanted. How many teams moved back in the 2010 draft and got the player? None. It wasn't like years past where there were a few teams accumulating draft picks while still getting the guy on their list. As you know from following this past weekends draft, it was all over the place. Every teams' draft board is so different from each others and with the group of players being fairly equal after the first two tiers, every team acted the same way. They grabbed the player they wanted.

As far as your last sentence is concerned, to conclude that CF and Flahr will be unsuccessful with having a "must get" attitude is invalid. Two different regimes. Two different picks. Two different development schemes. We have yet to see how prospects will develop under CF at the helm. It's a little more complex than you make it out to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Never is a draft pick a sure thing (that's why you need to reign in the scouts). That's why I want more ammo when you get back that far. Two chances is a better bet than one. It's almost comical to see star 2nd rounders like Weber and Stastny were drafted by teams that passed on them a little earlier in the same round. You can't get too in love with your wish lists, because nobody truly knows. Also drafting a player with lower upside is arguably just as risky as drafting a project. Every players needs to have enough talent in the end. That's what prevented Irmen from the NHL. Zucker is a nice prospect, but he looks a heckuva lot better being taken at #69 with another player at #99 than Zucker at #59.
Zucker was their guy. They had him high on their list and was ahead of the next tier of players. Teams do this every year. Get used to it.

Jbcraig1883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2010, 12:07 PM
  #803
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Since scouts are never right all the time, it's commonly counterproductive to "get your man" and burn up assets. The best teams will gauge the proceedings and sometimes trade down if they think they will still get their guy. It was interesting watching the "behind the scenes" coverage of the St. Louis Blues 2007 draft. Jarmo Kekalainen wasn't afraid to take the risk trading down for Lars Eller even though Eller was his man. It was a calculated decision that was right. Eller was still there for them. It seemed like this year Flahr had the "must get" attitude going in the 2nd round. It never worked out for DR, so I don't have my hopes up now either.
It takes two to trade and once again, the difference between DR and Flahr is that DR would give up high-end picks (2 seconds and 2 thirds over a three year period) like candy while Flahr gave up mid-rounders (i.e. 4th and 5th) which don't have as much value.

Quote:
Never is a draft pick a sure thing (that's why you need to reign in the scouts). That's why I want more ammo when you get back that far. Two chances is a better bet than one. It's almost comical to see star 2nd rounders like Weber and Stastny were drafted by teams that passed on them a little earlier in the same round. You can't get too in love with your wish lists, because nobody truly knows. Also drafting a player with lower upside is arguably just as risky as drafting a project. Every players needs to have enough talent in the end. That's what prevented Irmen from the NHL. Zucker is a nice prospect, but he looks a heckuva lot better being taken at #69 with another player at #99 than Zucker at #59.
Didn't we technically do that with the player you are arguing about?



Quote:
Yeah, a proven center playing against kids. Sorry, but that's not my definition of a center, especially when he shows the ideal skill and playing style of a winger. Before we can say he's a proven center, he has to start by being one in SM-Liiga. It wasn't a good start by "making it easy" for him and starting him at wing. His center last year was the same size and only 21, and he was fine. Usually the trend from center to wing only gets stronger. So if center is successful for Granlund this year we can only hope that will translate to the next step in the NHL.
There's a huge difference between 17/18 and 21.

Quote:
Don't draft for need. Well, it could have been coincidence, but Fletcher couldn't have picked a more "for need" player with Granlund. He's a "center" and projected to be close to NHL-ready. BTW, I'd rather have Alt over Bulmer personally.
That's your opinion but not one shared by management. We'll see if it pays off but everyone knows Don Lucia can't develop players



Quote:
2011 is projected to be on the weak side, but drafts get "stronger" as the year goes on. 2010 did that. The top end of 2011 however is expected to be considerably better than 2010 with some truly elite prospects expected to be drafted in Minnesota.
So then let's get three or four first round picks!

__________________
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
06-29-2010, 02:37 PM
  #804
thomast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,724
vCash: 500
Granlunds center was 22-23 years old with 2-3 full season under his belt.

thomast is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2010, 09:36 PM
  #805
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Since scouts are never right all the time, it's commonly counterproductive to "get your man" and burn up assets. The best teams will gauge the proceedings and sometimes trade down if they think they will still get their guy. It was interesting watching the "behind the scenes" coverage of the St. Louis Blues 2007 draft. Jarmo Kekalainen wasn't afraid to take the risk trading down for Lars Eller even though Eller was his man. It was a calculated decision that was right. Eller was still there for them. It seemed like this year Flahr had the "must get" attitude going in the 2nd round. It never worked out for DR, so I don't have my hopes up now either.
Nick Leddy says hi.

As for Flahr...he and scouts must have had the opinion that there must have been a significant drop off in talent, for them to trade up and get a guy who AT THE LEAST projects to contribute as a checking line forward.

This isn't Risebrough's regime either- you have to remember that the previous regime had NO EMPHASIS on development. Things have changed now, meaning each prospect will get their fair shake to go as far as they can (the difference here is that DR's philosophy was that a NHL contract was a precious thing, while CF looks as prospects as assets and chips.)

I get that its easy to take everything with a grain (or a couple 13, 14) of salt because of the previous regime, but its a different ethos now man...

Quote:
Never is a draft pick a sure thing (that's why you need to reign in the scouts).
Barring acts of god, I disagree.


Quote:
That's why I want more ammo when you get back that far. Two chances is a better bet than one.
In theory...

Quote:
It's almost comical to see star 2nd rounders like Weber and Stastny were drafted by teams that passed on them a little earlier in the same round. You can't get too in love with your wish lists, because nobody truly knows.
That's what scouting is all about! If you want your St. Louis Blues/2007 thrown right back in your face, go back and check out how their QMJHL scout fought for them to rank David Perron highly. You see a player, you identify what they can do, and if you feel strongly about them, you fight for them. It doesn't just happen at the NHL level, it happens in the scouting services, the junior level, etc.

Can they get things wrong? Of course. But to me, its better to say "I was flat wrong about player X" instead of being "I guess I should have spoken up about player X".


Quote:
Also drafting a player with lower upside is arguably just as risky as drafting a project. Every players needs to have enough talent in the end. That's what prevented Irmen from the NHL. Zucker is a nice prospect, but he looks a heckuva lot better being taken at #69 with another player at #99 than Zucker at #59.
Sheer conjecture. I've said it again, but its a matter of interpretation- if Flahr and Co. felt there was a significant drop off in talent, and Zucker was the last of that tier, then you get him even if it costs draft picks.

The goal is to get the most quality of the Draft, then you have to do it. Is this all because we traded up for Jason Zucker, instead of Kirill Kabanov or Teemu Pulkkinen? Would you have received those better than a guy who's made his money as a checker?

Quote:
Yeah, a proven center playing against kids. Sorry, but that's not my definition of a center, especially when he shows the ideal skill and playing style of a winger. Before we can say he's a proven center, he has to start by being one in SM-Liiga. It wasn't a good start by "making it easy" for him and starting him at wing. His center last year was the same size and only 21, and he was fine. Usually the trend from center to wing only gets stronger. So if center is successful for Granlund this year we can only hope that will translate to the next step in the NHL.
Alright who did you want then? If you're going to nitpick about the concensus smartest player in the draft, a top playmaker, and a guy with the most pro experience out of anyone, then who did you want? To me now you're just splitting hairs, despite what our Finnish contributors, scouts, etc. are telling us (who presumably know more than you and I) looking for a reason to be unhappy with the pick.

As a center, Granlund dominated his peer group (aside from the WJC, where he was injured and played with a butt squad) habitually in international competition. Then he moved on where he played with men and dominated- if you want to continue to reserve judgment, that's fine. But c'mon...give the kid some credit.

Quote:
Don't draft for need. Well, it could have been coincidence, but Fletcher couldn't have picked a more "for need" player with Granlund. He's a "center" and projected to be close to NHL-ready. BTW, I'd rather have Alt over Bulmer personally.
Coincidence...and personal preference.

Quote:
2011 is projected to be on the weak side, but drafts get "stronger" as the year goes on. 2010 did that. The top end of 2011 however is expected to be considerably better than 2010 with some truly elite prospects expected to be drafted in Minnesota.

Better get that hat cleaned up before you ingest it.

So you're saying we're gonna have a lottery pick? Is that the bet?


Quote:
Realism gets taken in many different ways.
If realism is something where you're intentionally looking for the faults, then ya, you're a realist. Cheer up SOH...it ain't so gloom and doom.

firstroundbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2010, 10:12 PM
  #806
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Never is a draft pick a sure thing (that's why you need to reign in the scouts). That's why I want more ammo when you get back that far. Two chances is a better bet than one.

lol...the scouts aren't 'spraying and praying' here. They are taking calculated shots at players they think can play in the big show a couple of years down the line.

By the way, not all draft picks are created equal. For example the calculated % of players in the second round that eventually make it is based on the players for the ENTIRE second round. In reality though, the players at the beginning of the second round have a greater chance of making it. That's why you trade up, to obtain a player that you perceive will give you the better odds. You trade down when you don't feel like the available pick has good enough odds on its own. Our scouts thought that the odds of that 2nd making to the NHL are better the than the odds of the 3rd + 4th.

IMO, Trading down really is only effective in the 1st or early 2nd when the players have much greater potential. That is why this was such a good deal for the wild.

Casper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2010, 11:28 PM
  #807
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Maybe SoH is Doug Risebrough?

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 12:08 AM
  #808
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomast View Post
Poor argument that hes not proven center if he played center with the kids. Then every center who were drafted are unproven centers because they played against kids. Granlund have dominated 3years older in every level as a center. Next year he is number 1 center of HIFK. Center position is most natural to him and his defensive abilities would been waste as a winger. Did you guys even know how good he is in the defensive zone and he is superb PK killer. Granlund had +12 in IFK which was teams highest. Next season top 3 scorer in FEL and +20 pls . It would be nice to see granlund playing in those 2 games in helsinki with wild's.
Poor argument? Look, until he plays and succeeds center against men instead of being "protected" like he was in the first year (never a good sign for a future center in the NHL), he's a winger. He's sure as heck no proven center yet in the FEL. Also, you don't have to be a center to be an elite defensive forward. The way I see it, him playing center wastes his skills at coming from the wing and controlling play with his puck handling. Center also doesn't allow him to be the trailer coming in on a rush. He needs total freedom offensively, and he simply looks natural at wing. I want him to score goals and create plays, not worry about responsibilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
Comparing 2010 draft to 2007 is not logical to support that we should have traded down to get the guy we wanted. How many teams moved back in the 2010 draft and got the player? None. It wasn't like years past where there were a few teams accumulating draft picks while still getting the guy on their list. As you know from following this past weekends draft, it was all over the place. Every teams' draft board is so different from each others and with the group of players being fairly equal after the first two tiers, every team acted the same way. They grabbed the player they wanted.
Well, I can't help you if you think I was somehow comparing the 2010 draft with the 2007 draft with that statement. You'll have to figure out the true context on your own because you totally missed the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
As far as your last sentence is concerned, to conclude that CF and Flahr will be unsuccessful with having a "must get" attitude is invalid. Two different regimes. Two different picks. Two different development schemes. We have yet to see how prospects will develop under CF at the helm. It's a little more complex than you make it out to be.
Wow, again, learn how to understand context. There is no "conclusion" in that sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
Zucker was their guy. They had him high on their list and was ahead of the next tier of players. Teams do this every year. Get used to it.
So how long should we all be a bunch of bobbleheads with a new new regime? In the 2008 draft, the Zucker trade-up would not have been universally agreed on, but in 2010 people are OK with it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
Didn't we technically do that with the player you are arguing about?
If you want to play this way, yes, but then Bulmer becomes the issue instead of Zucker. But whatever, that's not the point. The point is that sometimes even the teams that manage a great find in the 2nd round were actually "wrong" with that player at the same time. If they don't have a second chance, they don't get the good player. So it all goes back to chances, and the Wild obviously don't value having lots of chances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
There's a huge difference between 17/18 and 21.
Age isn't an excuse in the NHL. You either are or you aren't. I don't see top 18 year-old NHL rookies playing wing for a whole year just to get their feet wet and then changing to center.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
So then let's get three or four first round picks!
Now were getting somewhere!

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 12:31 AM
  #809
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
In theory...
No, in proven reality, unless the scouts are "gods" that know the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
That's what scouting is all about! If you want your St. Louis Blues/2007 thrown right back in your face,
*Sigh* I see you didn't understand the reason I threw the 2007 Blues example in there either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
Sheer conjecture. I've said it again, but its a matter of interpretation- if Flahr and Co. felt there was a significant drop off in talent, and Zucker was the last of that tier, then you get him even if it costs draft picks.
Now we're back to the scouts running the show again. I don't care what Flahr or any scout "feels". When you get back that far, there is little "drop-off" in talent (especially when you didn't draft a top talent to begin with).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
The goal is to get the most quality of the Draft, then you have to do it. Is this all because we traded up for Jason Zucker, instead of Kirill Kabanov or Teemu Pulkkinen? Would you have received those better than a guy who's made his money as a checker?
Would I have received those better? Doesn't matter. I wasn't against drafting Zucker in the first place. I go back to my first reaction ("not bad"). I minded the trade up to get him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
Alright who did you want then? If you're going to nitpick about the concensus smartest player in the draft, a top playmaker, and a guy with the most pro experience out of anyone, then who did you want? To me now you're just splitting hairs, despite what our Finnish contributors, scouts, etc. are telling us (who presumably know more than you and I) looking for a reason to be unhappy with the pick.
You really don't get it do you. Granlund would have been my #4 choice at #9, and I wasn't upset with it at all. I've been on Granlund's side from day 1. I'm not debating about the player. I'm debating with those that are automatically penciling him in at Wild #2 center when he didn't even play that position last year at HIFK.

Even though this is irrelevant to the Granlund issue, I'll say this because I want good record of it for the future. I preferred one of the big-two defensemen left, and my preference between them was Fowler. I liked Granlund, but I wouldn't have passed them up. We'll see who was right, me or the Wild brass, down the road.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
So you're saying we're gonna have a lottery pick? Is that the bet?
No more of a bet than the empty promise to eat a hat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceUNO View Post
If realism is something where you're intentionally looking for the faults, then ya, you're a realist. Cheer up SOH...it ain't so gloom and doom.
The reason why the faults come out more often from me is because the rosiness is already well-represented in Wild fans. I don't go along with it when it isn't a rosy time.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 12:35 AM
  #810
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Now were getting somewhere!
Well, do you mind explaining the Cole move from Kekalainen? Yes, he wasn't afraid to move down to get Eller because he was confident he will still be there. But what about Cole? He was sure he was going to be picked before them, so they moved up. GMCF has shown both of these traits. Leddy was the guy they wanted so they moved down and Zucker was the guy they wanted so they moved up

Also, I know getting 3-4 in the top 30 is ideal but you aren't going to get that unless we start trading alot of key guys like Burns or Koivu. Having 4 picks in the top 60 isn't a bad second and thats what we got this year, and we didn't lose any of our key guys at the same time!
P.S The whole 30 players in the 2nd round is very close to the 1st round late 30 guys so is there really much of a difference between 4 picks in the first and 4 picks through the 1st and 2nd? (assuming these firsts we are talking aren't top 15 picks)

Circulartheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 12:47 AM
  #811
BuddyMcCormick
Registered User
 
BuddyMcCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Now we're back to the scouts running the show again. I don't care what Flahr or any scout "feels". When you get back that far, there is little "drop-off" in talent (especially when you didn't draft a top talent to begin with).
I stopped reading after that. Of course the scouts run the show, who else would? These guys are paid to go watch and evaluate kids play hockey.

Should we pull some Joe Schmoe off the street to draft for us? Without scouting they're just names on a piece of paper.

BuddyMcCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 02:28 AM
  #812
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Poor argument? Look, until he plays and succeeds center against men instead of being "protected" like he was in the first year (never a good sign for a future center in the NHL), he's a winger. He's sure as heck no proven center yet in the FEL. Also, you don't have to be a center to be an elite defensive forward. The way I see it, him playing center wastes his skills at coming from the wing and controlling play with his puck handling. Center also doesn't allow him to be the trailer coming in on a rush. He needs total freedom offensively, and he simply looks natural at wing. I want him to score goals and create plays, not worry about responsibilities.

Well, I can't help you if you think I was somehow comparing the 2010 draft with the 2007 draft with that statement. You'll have to figure out the true context on your own because you totally missed the point.


Wow, again, learn how to understand context. There is no "conclusion" in that sentence.


So how long should we all be a bunch of bobbleheads with a new new regime? In the 2008 draft, the Zucker trade-up would not have been universally agreed on, but in 2010 people are OK with it again.


If you want to play this way, yes, but then Bulmer becomes the issue instead of Zucker. But whatever, that's not the point. The point is that sometimes even the teams that manage a great find in the 2nd round were actually "wrong" with that player at the same time. If they don't have a second chance, they don't get the good player. So it all goes back to chances, and the Wild obviously don't value having lots of chances.



Age isn't an excuse in the NHL. You either are or you aren't. I don't see top 18 year-old NHL rookies playing wing for a whole year just to get their feet wet and then changing to center.


Now were getting somewhere!
I bet you're one of those people who yells, "Shooooooot!!!!" when a guy gets the puck just above the goal line near the boards or when there's nobody out front when a defenseman has the puck standing still at the blueline on the PP.

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 08:42 AM
  #813
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
So how long should we all be a bunch of bobbleheads with a new new regime? In the 2008 draft, the Zucker trade-up would not have been universally agreed on, but in 2010 people are OK with it again.
Just wanted to respond to this point:

The new regime has had ONE year. I don't see how we're bobbleheading by waiting to see how they do, and not just assuming the worst.

Your second point is correct, but for good reason. The people running the show in 2008 had a track record of mistakes and asset mishandling. I, for one, won't use mistakes of past GM's to crucify the new one.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 10:41 AM
  #814
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,032
vCash: 500
Let's look at that 09 draft...

1 - Nick Leddy - a bit of a reach, but GMCF DID trade down and got this player. Had a really slow start with the U of M and got injured, arguably better than Aaron Ness though who was a pure offensive guy, still has top four potential.

2 - (no pick) - traded by Risebrough for Zidlicky

3 - (no pick) - traded by Risebrough to move up for Gillies

3 - Matt Hackett - acquired pick by moving down in the first round...improved quite a bit compared to last year, didn't make the WJC cut but was still a very good goalie and could be a starter in the NHL down the road.

4 - Kris Foucault - had a pretty good year by WHL standards, seemed to do well in the playoffs too, a very long shot to make the NHL but could be a good Houston guy, maybe eventually a callup.

4 - Alex Fallstrom - acquired pick from Boston for Fernandez, had a good camp but just an okay year at Harvard...still has some skill and upside but needs to improve next year or likely a bust.

5 - (no pick) traded by GMCF for Brodziak

6 - Darcy Kuemper - acquired from Oilers for Brodziak, improved quite a bit over the previous year and also got some time in Houston, could be an NHL backup some day, future looks good for him.

6 - Jere Sallinen - seemed to have an okay year but I've heard nothing about him at all.

7 - Erik Haula - acquired pick from NY Isles from moving down, put up huge numbers in the USHL, going to the U of M next year, if they don't screw him up, he has big upside.

7 - Anthony Hamburg - didn't put up great numbers in the USHL, at this point is a reach to make the AHL unless he has a bustout season next year.



So he had a pretty good draft last year thus far...we won't be able to really judge for a few more years, but he turned a few assets into many, especially considering Risebrough only left him with one pick in the first three rounds.

Of our 8 picks last year, 4 of them had pretty good years, 4 of them were okay or a bit disappointing. That's not bad. Leddy, Hackett, Haula, and Kuemper could all still end up in the NHL, and Foucault might be a callup someday.

Based on his one-year track record, I don't see a reason to panic about GMCF's drafting abilities.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 11:59 AM
  #815
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Age isn't an excuse in the NHL. You either are or you aren't. I don't see top 18 year-old NHL rookies playing wing for a whole year just to get their feet wet and then changing to center.
Kyle Turris says hi, although that was a major ****up. But the reason you don't see that happen is basically because there are only a couple 18 year-old NHL centers every year. Most of those kids are still playing against 16-19 year-olds.

Quote:
Now were getting somewhere!
Wow, I was joking because one, that would involve trading away Koivu and/or Burns just for the pick, or two, that would involve trading up a bunch of previous picks for two (which actually wouldn't happen because there's no second this year) and apparently that's not acceptable to you.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2010, 12:30 PM
  #816
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post

Well, I can't help you if you think I was somehow comparing the 2010 draft with the 2007 draft with that statement. You'll have to figure out the true context on your own because you totally missed the point.

Wow, again, learn how to understand context. There is no "conclusion" in that sentence.

So how long should we all be a bunch of bobbleheads with a new new regime? In the 2008 draft, the Zucker trade-up would not have been universally agreed on, but in 2010 people are OK with it again.

<Sigh>

I don't know where to start. Not knowing your own point (conclusion as I have used it-it's what you draw from your support, and, yes, there is one), using poor justification by comparing apples to oranges, not understanding variables between two different years, markets, etc makes arguing impossible if two people aren't one the same page. It's the same as the pre-draft thread was...not being consistent and contradicting oneself over and over.

Anywho, no point in debating this further. We are all aware of where you stand.


Last edited by Jbcraig1883: 06-30-2010 at 12:36 PM.
Jbcraig1883 is offline   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 04:42 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.