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

Your Thoughts After Ten Games

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2010, 05:47 PM
  #26
D U M B A
The Disaster March
 
D U M B A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
No. What I'm saying is that I want my favorite pro hockey team to field the best team that they can and try to make the playoffs. If that's no good enough, and they finish last and are able to get a Crosby/Ovy/Stamkos, fine. If they finish just outside the playoffs, I would hope that they could hit on a great player at that position (because you CAN find them there).
This.

What it boils down to me is me wanting the Wild to give a full game effort. If we truly don't have the talent and after giving 100%, we are left drafting first overall, obviously we have a lot to improve then. If we're tanking to tank for several years to gather top picks for (not guaranteed) elite prospects, no thanks. At least currently, I can tune into a game this year and possibly see a win.

Of course, we'd all love to have a Stamkos and Doughty on the Wild. What I really want the Wild to do (even if it costs Leipold a lot) is to get the best scouts he can. Our drafts have been a great laugh from outsiders (and with proof you build winners through the draft, especially if top UFA's don't want to play here), I'd love for us to invest even more into the draft. Is that too much to ask for after a decade of mostly draft failure? I think we're heading in the right direction (e.g. three picks in the second round last draft was unheard of for the Wild). I hope we can continue to improve our drafts and bring in more coveted (college) free agents.

D U M B A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:09 PM
  #27
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
He didn't hand a roster spot to Falk. He made the team out of camp.

I'd rather the team not give up on a season before it starts and try to make the playoffs. If they finish 15th doing that, then I can accept that. If they finish 9th-10th, I can accept that as well.
We had a spot open on D at the start of camp. Someone was getting it, whether it was Falk, Prosser, or Scandella. There was no veteran to pushover, and Stoner is a #7 at best. If Fletcher didn't want one of those guys getting a spot he could have signed a free agent. He did not, therefore Falk was indeed handed a spot, and therefore a Chuck Fletcher player.

Who said give up on the season? Tell me this, if Chuck Fletcher doesn't sign Martin Havlat, claiming "The high-end players were not interested, and I'm not going to overpay for low-end players" then how would you have felt? Martin Havlat wasn't going to go public saying that the Wild shafted him, he's a free agent. I'd be pretty happy to hear a GM say he wasn't going to overpay UFAs. Cap management has always been a problem for our organization.

Even look at the Kobasew trade. Who says he has to make that trade? We're the 29th best team in the NHL. Did we see Edmonton trading picks and prospects to get lower-end players? No.

I'm well aware you can get elite talent outside the top-3/5/10, but it becomes less likely with every passing pick. I wouldn't disagree with someone that would say the Wild would have taken Granlund 3rd overall, but I'd rather be in that lottery situation than sitting at #9.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:27 PM
  #28
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
We had a spot open on D at the start of camp. Someone was getting it, whether it was Falk, Prosser, or Scandella. There was no veteran to pushover, and Stoner is a #7 at best. If Fletcher didn't want one of those guys getting a spot he could have signed a free agent. He did not, therefore Falk was indeed handed a spot, and therefore a Chuck Fletcher player.

Who said give up on the season? Tell me this, if Chuck Fletcher doesn't sign Martin Havlat, claiming "The high-end players were not interested, and I'm not going to overpay for low-end players" then how would you have felt? Martin Havlat wasn't going to go public saying that the Wild shafted him, he's a free agent. I'd be pretty happy to hear a GM say he wasn't going to overpay UFAs. Cap management has always been a problem for our organization.

Even look at the Kobasew trade. Who says he has to make that trade? We're the 29th best team in the NHL. Did we see Edmonton trading picks and prospects to get lower-end players? No.

I'm well aware you can get elite talent outside the top-3/5/10, but it becomes less likely with every passing pick. I wouldn't disagree with someone that would say the Wild would have taken Granlund 3rd overall, but I'd rather be in that lottery situation than sitting at #9.
I disagree that $5 million for Havlat was an overpayment at the time based on the season he had just had. I tried to do a quick look around the league at comparable contracts and a couple I found: Ribiero signed a 5 year x $5 million after a comparable year of 83 points and 27 goals; Pominville signed on for $5.3 per year after a 66 point season in Buffalo.

Edmonton was killed by injuries last year; we weren't, we were just playing poorly, and it was felt that a change needed to be made.

Dr Jan Itor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:39 PM
  #29
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
I disagree that $5 million for Havlat was an overpayment at the time based on the season he had just had. I tried to do a quick look around the league at comparable contracts and a couple I found: Ribiero signed a 5 year x $5 million after a comparable year of 83 points and 27 goals; Pominville signed on for $5.3 per year after a 66 point season in Buffalo.
Never said Havlat was overpaid, as he wasn't. Was saying there shouldn't have been any pressure on GMCF to sign him, and had he not there wouldn't have been backlash like say Rolston, a player who enjoyed his time here(I'm well aware 5.5M was too much, but he would have taken much less during the season) and was willing to re-sign, opposed to a free agent signed from another team. He chose to sign him, and its quite clear it hasn't worked out. Expectations were too high on Havlat from the start though, as people expected a "secondary player" to replace a "star player".

Its more the Kobasew/Barker deals that annoy me. Why trade a 2nd round pick for a 3rd liner? Why trade a 1st rounder + top-pairing rental for a 24 year old to scratch when healthy in favor of an AHL-caliber d-man(Stoner)?

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 09:00 PM
  #30
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
No. What I'm saying is that I want my favorite pro hockey team to field the best team that they can and try to make the playoffs. If that's not good enough, and they finish last and are able to get a Crosby/Ovy/Stamkos, fine. If they finish just outside the playoffs, I would hope that they could hit on a great player at that position (because you CAN find them there).

Actually, on second thought, you've convinced me. I want the Wild to suck, and not enjoy my favorite sport for 5 years for the POSSIBILITY that other teams don't suck more than us and we can get the number one pick.
You're being far too optimistic. In many drafts there is no one beyond #2 or #3 that is going to be a star. In that situation it doesn't how much you scout and make the right choices. Sometimes the numbers automatically get you. And truthfully that's bitten the Wild since June 2000. We haven't drafted high enough, often enough. Good isn't good enough. You need great to win. The Wild have never done a good job playing the numbers. DR started it, and CF has followed in kind.

So that's why you have to plan well, and sometimes that means not "trying to make the playoffs" in the off-season. Do you think Colorado was trying hard to make the playoffs in the 2009 off-season? Not only were they not making moves that on the surface made them noticeably better, they went the other way and traded away one of their best players! Yet through all that they made the playoffs anyway. Sometimes "trying to fail" helps now and for the future.

Question: Are you enjoying the Wild lately? Cause if you're not, like me, why not make this pain worthwhile? I'm still enjoying hockey because I see some great talent playing a great game. Last year I had a blast watching NHL action. Frankly, I'm jealous and what that fun in Minnesota.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 10:47 PM
  #31
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
You're being far too optimistic. In many drafts there is no one beyond #2 or #3 that is going to be a star. In that situation it doesn't how much you scout and make the right choices. Sometimes the numbers automatically get you. And truthfully that's bitten the Wild since June 2000. We haven't drafted high enough, often enough. Good isn't good enough. You need great to win. The Wild have never done a good job playing the numbers. DR started it, and CF has followed in kind.
I agree that the odds of of busting is greater outside of the top 3. I get that math. I just hate the thought and idea of intentionally failing to have a chance, not a certainty, but a chance at being in that position. My point before, with listing out those picks, was that great players can be found everywhere, not just at the top. And that teams can compete during the year and still draft an impact player later on. Now, the Wild haven't done that, and that's on the scouting and drafting areas. I'd rather us do that, rather than tank.

Quote:
So that's why you have to plan well, and sometimes that means not "trying to make the playoffs" in the off-season. Do you think Colorado was trying hard to make the playoffs in the 2009 off-season? Not only were they not making moves that on the surface made them noticeably better, they went the other way and traded away one of their best players! Yet through all that they made the playoffs anyway. Sometimes "trying to fail" helps now and for the future.
I understand asset management. If you have a pending UFA, who isn't a part of the future, you can dump them for picks/prospects/whatever. I just don't condone making that decision before the season starts. I don't think that a GM should have the mindset of standing idle during the offseason. You don't always have to "make the playoffs" in the offseason. Sometimes options don't prevent themselves, and I understand that. But I don't think that a GM should refuse a move (a signing/trade/whater) that he feels makes the team better, because he wants to get high draft pick. Coaches and GM's don't get commended for getting #1's, they get fired. Ask Dale Tallon how much he enjoyed Chicago's Stanley Cup. So I don't blame Fletcher for having the mindset that he does.

Quote:
Question: Are you enjoying the Wild lately? Cause if you're not, like me, why not make this pain worthwhile? I'm still enjoying hockey because I see some great talent playing a great game. Last year I had a blast watching NHL action. Frankly, I'm jealous and what that fun in Minnesota.
I love hockey, from the pros on down, and I want my teams to win championships. Truth is, I am enjoying the Wild lately. The season is still early, and we don't know quite what we have, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel. Look at the Flyers last year, making the PO's on the last day, and they made it all the way to the Finals. JVR was a 2nd overall, but other than that: Giroux at 22, Richards at 24, Carter at 11, (i guess Pitkanen as a 4 in 2002, but still), trades, FA signings was how they built their championship caliber team, and I don't see why we couldn't do the same. We had a great talent here for 8 years (maybe 9, I don't quite remember) in Gaborik, and it was awesome to watch him everyday. But that alone is a good example of how drafting a top pick/awesome player doesn't always guarantee anything. I'm not ready to give up on entire seasons for that chance.

Dr Jan Itor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 10:48 PM
  #32
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Look, Mikko Koivu should not dictate the good of the team. He's 27, signed long-term, and obviously not good enough to take a below average team and make it a playoff team. In other words, he's not even good enough to dictate strategy on the worry about him leaving.
No the point is that if you're going to rebuild, it's a clean slate. You're not building around Koivu, you're not building around Burns. If you want those guys, then good. But you don't get both of them while adding young talent. In fact, you're going to basically do the same thing our team just did given half of it is untradeable and there's absolutely no solid prospects from the previous regime. Anyone who's going to make a difference in the dream rebuild won't make a difference for at least two years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maltesefalcon View Post
This.

What it boils down to me is me wanting the Wild to give a full game effort. If we truly don't have the talent and after giving 100%, we are left drafting first overall, obviously we have a lot to improve then. If we're tanking to tank for several years to gather top picks for (not guaranteed) elite prospects, no thanks. At least currently, I can tune into a game this year and possibly see a win.

Of course, we'd all love to have a Stamkos and Doughty on the Wild. What I really want the Wild to do (even if it costs Leipold a lot) is to get the best scouts he can. Our drafts have been a great laugh from outsiders (and with proof you build winners through the draft, especially if top UFA's don't want to play here), I'd love for us to invest even more into the draft. Is that too much to ask for after a decade of mostly draft failure? I think we're heading in the right direction (e.g. three picks in the second round last draft was unheard of for the Wild). I hope we can continue to improve our drafts and bring in more coveted (college) free agents.
That's what I would like to see too. The previous problem was drafting and scouting and it's an organizational problem. That takes time and unfortunately this is the first season where we're seeing what the Fletcher and Leipold regime can do to rehabilitate the organization.

And also SoHo - if you don't like what the Wild are doing by losing and playing uninspiring hockey, what makes you think you'd like it when they tank?

__________________
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
10-31-2010, 11:01 PM
  #33
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
No the point is that if you're going to rebuild, it's a clean slate. You're not building around Koivu, you're not building around Burns. If you want those guys, then good. But you don't get both of them while adding young talent. In fact, you're going to basically do the same thing our team just did given half of it is untradeable and there's absolutely no solid prospects from the previous regime. Anyone who's going to make a difference in the dream rebuild won't make a difference for at least two years.


That's what I would like to see too. The previous problem was drafting and scouting and it's an organizational problem. That takes time and unfortunately this is the first season where we're seeing what the Fletcher and Leipold regime can do to rehabilitate the organization.

And also SoHo - if you don't like what the Wild are doing by losing and playing uninspiring hockey, what makes you think you'd like it when they tank?
The "inevitable" Stanley Cup would soften those losses

Dr Jan Itor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 11:02 PM
  #34
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,829
vCash: 500
Yes but that's in the future. We're living in the present.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 11:47 PM
  #35
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,511
vCash: 500
Meh, the wild are playing the exact way i expected. We're gonna see the variation in the level of play based on the skill level of the team. Some good, some bad. the team is still putting the pieces together and a lot of the what if's are just starting to be answered.

Backstrom looks good, Burns looks good, I like what I am seeing from Cam Barker, falk is a nice suprise, Cullen looks good, etc.

Kobasew struggling, Havlat is heartless, Lats is fat, I'm losing confidence in Todd Richards daily, Bruno's lack of speed is evident, etc.

still to be answered: can Kobasew return to his 20 goal form on the first line wing, does havlat have any pride, can he and lats rekindle the magic, can backstrom keep it up (even with an inconsistent team in front of him), can our top two lines figure it out, etc.

Overall the wild haven't exceeded any expectation but they haven't been too disappointing either. I expect much of the same throughout the year. I still think we finish between 7-10 in the west. In another 10 to 20 games I feel we'll have much clearer answer to the what ifs that will shape the season.

Casper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2010, 05:12 AM
  #36
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
You know, watching this team's transition from one regime to the next is like going from a Broadway play to a donkey show.

We knew the transition was going to be rough. We lost one of the best coaches in the past decade, we lost our electrifying goal scorer, and our prospect depth was in shambles.

And I feel sorry for Richards. He has the added pressure of coming from Minnesota and asked to turn around a team that has nothing that he needs or can use to implement a system he wants to use.

There is no down year for Minnesota. It has to be win, win, win.

Fletcher has done an adequate job of building a decent team but the pieces are still not there to make a cup run. Our depth is thin at best, especially proven this early in the season and our struggles to actually get even strength goals. In the playoffs, if we make it to the playoffs, those depth problems are going to be magnified.

And there really isn't an identity yet to this team.

While Leipold might not like to hear it, I think this team needs a complete make over.

Build around Koivu.

We got two, if not three solid pillars to build around depending on how long Backstrom can go.

Koivu, Burns and Backstrom.

We got the pieces to add around them so far. Granlund, Lats, Cuma, and Scandy, so let's add that fourth pillar.

The dynamic goal scorer. There should be one in this draft. Nugent- Hodgkin or Rask or Landeskog...


Last edited by thestonedkoala: 11-01-2010 at 05:19 AM.
thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2010, 10:51 AM
  #37
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,386
vCash: 500
We don't have to look any further than Minneapolis to see what can happen when a team consistently finishes in the cellar. How much closer are the Wolves to winning than the Wild? Or how much closer are they than they were three years ago when they started rebuilding?

I can't blame Fletcher for Havlat not producing (even if I thought Havlat looked fine before he opened up his mouth). The guy was scoring post-lockout, and even last season after his injury. Now he has no chemistry with Cullen and looks completely disinterested. Honestly, if I were Richards, I'd tell Havlat to go home for a few days, if he doesn't want to play then I don't want him around the team.

Right now IMO Richards has a different problem on his hands than he did last year. The guys know the system, that's not it. Yes there are injuries, but that's not it either. Admittedly I'm not in the locker room, but I'm afraid guys are quitting, and that's unacceptable. This is where the player management side of a coach is revealed, something that none of the assistants can do. Richards needs to see if his guys are competing and pushing each other in practice, and if not he needs to send a message.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2010, 12:28 PM
  #38
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,163
vCash: 500
Good
Blueline - Top to bottom, the defense has been pretty solid after a rocky start.
Backstrom - Also had some rocky games, but has also already won a few for the Wild.
Prospect depth - much better than in years past (but still not good)


Bad
All the forwards

Ugly
Little to no cap space to make any large changes moving forward.

nickschultzfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2010, 01:24 AM
  #39
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
I agree that the odds of of busting is greater outside of the top 3. I get that math. I just hate the thought and idea of intentionally failing to have a chance, not a certainty, but a chance at being in that position. My point before, with listing out those picks, was that great players can be found everywhere, not just at the top. And that teams can compete during the year and still draft an impact player later on. Now, the Wild haven't done that, and that's on the scouting and drafting areas. I'd rather us do that, rather than tank.
You can find them . . . sometimes. Take the 2004 draft for example. At the top we have two superstar talents. Not another star was drafted in the 289 picks after. Some good players, but no Versus broadcasts.

The Wild didn't draft well from 2004 on. But besides Kopitar (and arguably Stewart), who else would have been the team-changer picked nearby? Stafford? Frolik? Perron? Do those guys put us in Cup talk? No, the Gaboriks do. The Kopitars do. It's just asking a lot out of scouting and managing to get great players beyond the first few picks. 2003 drafts don't grow on trees. Sometimes they didn't have a chance no matter what, like how the 2004 draft turned out.

You could say that Edmonton is "intentionally" losing this year. But it that a bad move? I don't think so, and that's many have said. They're not ready to challenge yet, so let it come naturally and save the big moves for later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
The season is still early, and we don't know quite what we have, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel.
I'm not saying we have to thrown in the towel on this season. No one is. But if things go south, is having another 2009-10 mindset the right idea?

The 2006-08 Wild was a heckuva lot more fun. It still wasn't an elite team, but I think we've been so boring these past few years that we don't know what a supremely talented team is anymore. I want to go to the X to see the Wild, not the other squad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
No the point is that if you're going to rebuild, it's a clean slate. You're not building around Koivu, you're not building around Burns.
Then our points match?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
And also SoHo - if you don't like what the Wild are doing by losing and playing uninspiring hockey, what makes you think you'd like it when they tank?
I'd only "like" the direction, not the level of play. I've seen two games live this year, and I've been going to see the other team, because our their skill level. It would be easier to take these lean years if the future prospects for the Wild were getting much stronger. They just aren't much stronger lately, so the hope now and in the near future isn't there yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
We don't have to look any further than Minneapolis to see what can happen when a team consistently finishes in the cellar. How much closer are the Wolves to winning than the Wild? Or how much closer are they than they were three years ago when they started rebuilding?
The Wolves are a prime example of atrocious ownership and management - not consistent with the proven NHL method of worst to first. But there is one correlation in there. The Wolves, in part thanks to the NBA draft lottery, have never picked higher than #3. The NBA draft is more of a crapshoot the NHL version, but not picking top-2 has always hindered the Wolves' chances of getting a star player. 1992 is a prime example of pick #3 being the first loser.

They may or may not be closer, but at least now there's a sliver of optimism surrounding the team about their future.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2010, 01:39 AM
  #40
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,829
vCash: 500
As a side note, it's not like ending up with the #1 pick would help the Wolves. Only one team has ever won a title with a #1 pick they drafted on their roster and that's San Antonio.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2010, 06:40 AM
  #41
WildisLaw
Just win, baby
 
WildisLaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Napa Valley, Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
My thoughts: This is a much improved start over last year. Once the offense comes around, I really believe they will be a playoff team.

WildisLaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2010, 09:26 AM
  #42
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,984
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
You're being far too optimistic. In many drafts there is no one beyond #2 or #3 that is going to be a star.
Then again, there are quite a few top 3 picks that have ended up on the Wild that were dicey. Zyuzin, Daigle, Barker. Looking at a few drafts from the 90s and 2000s, I couldn't find one that didn't produce a star after the first 3 picks, except maybe 2000.

Surly Furious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2010, 10:33 AM
  #43
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
You can find them . . . sometimes. Take the 2004 draft for example. At the top we have two superstar talents. Not another star was drafted in the 289 picks after. Some good players, but no Versus broadcasts.

The Wild didn't draft well from 2004 on. But besides Kopitar (and arguably Stewart), who else would have been the team-changer picked nearby? Stafford? Frolik? Perron? Do those guys put us in Cup talk? No, the Gaboriks do. The Kopitars do. It's just asking a lot out of scouting and managing to get great players beyond the first few picks. 2003 drafts don't grow on trees. Sometimes they didn't have a chance no matter what, like how the 2004 draft turned out.

You could say that Edmonton is "intentionally" losing this year. But it that a bad move? I don't think so, and that's many have said. They're not ready to challenge yet, so let it come naturally and save the big moves for later.
Agreed, the 2004 draft was very weak outside of the few, but for every 2004, there is a 2003 and then the other years are in between.

Perron (as an example, since you brought him up) is a very good player. Does he, by himself, put us into cup talk? No, but there are only 3 guys in a league of ~600 or 700 that do. Great teams have great players, I agree, but they also have depth, and if you think that Chicago wins the Cup without last year without their depth, and have to rely almost entirely on Kane/Toews, I'll have to disagree with you on that. 2003 drafts don't grow on trees, yes, but neither do drafts like 2004. They usually fall somewhere in the middle.

It's asking a lot out of scouting and management to find good players outside of the top 3?!?! Why even have scouts then??? Just let the owner run the draft, or better yet, I'll do it (they can just pay me in jerseys, upper deck tickets and free parking; it'll save them a fortune). If we're in the top 3, it'll be easy because I'll pick a "can't-miss" player. If I'm not, then it won't matter because I probably won't pick anybody good, but that's OK, because the scouts probably wouldn't have either. There is no doubt that scouting/drafting is tough, in any sport. There are too many outside forces/influences that can affect the players, and a lot of them are picked mostly on potential, but when it comes down to it, it's their job. Their job is to watch young hockey players, formulate an opinion on how they will progress/translate to the NHL when they get older and make draft selections based on that opinion. Do you think it's just a coincidence or dumb luck that Boston just miraculously finds guys like Bergeron, Kreijci, Lucic in the 2nd rounds, or Detroit finds guys like Franzen, Zetterberg, Datsyuk after the first round?

Quote:
I'm not saying we have to thrown in the towel on this season. No one is. But if things go south, is having another 2009-10 mindset the right idea?

The 2006-08 Wild was a heckuva lot more fun. It still wasn't an elite team, but I think we've been so boring these past few years that we don't know what a supremely talented team is anymore. I want to go to the X to see the Wild, not the other squad.
I want to be able to watch a talented, exciting, winning team as well. I just don't want to have to, and am not willing to, sit through 3 years or 4 years or however many years it would take, of ugly ******** hockey for it to happen. Supremely talented teams can be built without losing 55 games a year every year.


Last edited by Dr Jan Itor: 11-02-2010 at 10:42 AM. Reason: Bad English
Dr Jan Itor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 04:57 AM
  #44
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
As a side note, it's not like ending up with the #1 pick would help the Wolves. Only one team has ever won a title with a #1 pick they drafted on their roster and that's San Antonio.
Actually, while this argument is fair, you forgot Hakeem the Dream for the Houston Rockets :p

And David Robinson...wait...San Antonio had two, Tim Duncan and David Robinson.

Knicks got close with Ewing and Orlando with Howard have looked beastly.

But the NBA is kind of messed up...sooo.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 01:27 PM
  #45
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Actually, while this argument is fair, you forgot Hakeem the Dream for the Houston Rockets :p

And David Robinson...wait...San Antonio had two, Tim Duncan and David Robinson.

Knicks got close with Ewing and Orlando with Howard have looked beastly.

But the NBA is kind of messed up...sooo.
Sorry, I meant since the lottery was instituted. There are plenty of others from before the mid-80s.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 04:06 PM
  #46
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
As a side note, it's not like ending up with the #1 pick would help the Wolves. Only one team has ever won a title with a #1 pick they drafted on their roster and that's San Antonio.
That guy named Shaq would have helped a little, don't you think? That Alonzo character wasn't too shabby either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
Then again, there are quite a few top 3 picks that have ended up on the Wild that were dicey. Zyuzin, Daigle, Barker. Looking at a few drafts from the 90s and 2000s, I couldn't find one that didn't produce a star after the first 3 picks, except maybe 2000.
The '90s were a different animal. Top-3/5 wasn't so much a sure thing. And there were truly some pathetic drafts, like 1999 and 1996. It depends on who you call a star, but I know of a least a couple drafts this past decade where a bonafide star wasn't drafted past top-3. 2000 and 2004 are two of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
It's asking a lot out of scouting and management to find good players outside of the top 3?!?! Why even have scouts then??? Just let the owner run the draft, or better yet, I'll do it (they can just pay me in jerseys, upper deck tickets and free parking; it'll save them a fortune). If we're in the top 3, it'll be easy because I'll pick a "can't-miss" player. If I'm not, then it won't matter because I probably won't pick anybody good, but that's OK, because the scouts probably wouldn't have either. There is no doubt that scouting/drafting is tough, in any sport. There are too many outside forces/influences that can affect the players, and a lot of them are picked mostly on potential, but when it comes down to it, it's their job. Their job is to watch young hockey players, formulate an opinion on how they will progress/translate to the NHL when they get older and make draft selections based on that opinion. Do you think it's just a coincidence or dumb luck that Boston just miraculously finds guys like Bergeron, Kreijci, Lucic in the 2nd rounds, or Detroit finds guys like Franzen, Zetterberg, Datsyuk after the first round?
I said "great" players. Look at the Wild for a prime example. Have we drafted a "great" player beyond #6? No. It's difficult, and expecting a solid rebuild without the aid of the top-3/5 selections is putting the ball into scouting departments that routinely fail to make the best choice. The draft is not called a crapshoot for nothing. Do you want to hang your hopes on just having good scouts like Boston did back in 2003, 2004, and 2006? Can that be counted on? History says no, since that same management did poorly in the 2005 draft and must have had Yuri Alexandrov ranked higher than Lucic in 2006. And if Detroit knew that Zetterberg, Datsyuk, and Franzen were going to be that good, why did they wait that long before taking them. So yes, you need scouting skill, but luck has a lot to do with it. Even the best scouts know that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
I want to be able to watch a talented, exciting, winning team as well. I just don't want to have to, and am not willing to, sit through 3 years or 4 years or however many years it would take, of ugly ******** hockey for it to happen. Supremely talented teams can be built without losing 55 games a year every year.
This hockey is already as ugly as sin! You've lived through this already, so It's not going to kill you for a few more years because that's what it take regardless of the path to improvement. Yeah, supremely talented teams can be built without being dead last. But I'll hang my best hopes on being really bad versus just below average.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 04:10 PM
  #47
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,829
vCash: 500
Yeah, both of them left the team which drafted them for greener pastures.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 04:57 PM
  #48
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,163
vCash: 500
Why the heck are we talking about the NBA in the Wild's 10-game evaluation thread? I go out of my away to avoid that game at every other sports website.

nickschultzfan 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 10:44 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.