HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Florida Panthers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The 2011 NHL Draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2011, 06:37 PM
  #326
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,901
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyJagrov View Post
That's just the numbers I can find on hockeydb... And I was disappointed...

Can you explain how he has played more games, and breakdown the numbers ?

Because you know I went to compare the two of Biggs and Van Riemsdyk (I know JVR is a pretty good player, and Biggs isn't expected to be on that level, JVR was the only highly touted forward I could remember coming out of the US development program lately), and the gap is pretty large !

In his draft year JVR had 13 goals 12 assists in 12 games along with 37 PIM playing in the NAHL

Biggs has 4 goals 2 assists in 11 games with 35 PIM in the USHL

I'm comfortable in hockey with about any league but the US development program and its college routes... USHL is an NCAA league or on par ?

Could you explain Biggs situation to me and make the comparison with JVR, I would like your knowledge on that thanks buddy !
Take a look here for all his stats (excel spreadsheet):

http://www.usahockey.com/USANTDP/def...F_03&ID=233672

You can see his stats from the exhibition games against college teams and also the international play against players of his same age (find the U18 tabs in the spreadsheet).

The USHL is like a development league for the NCAA. Most guys that want to maintain their collegiate eligibility end up play there initially. Most colleges use the league to help develop a player a little further when its unlikely they'll be able to give the player enough icetime. Corbin Knight was suppose to head back to the USHL last yr but a spot opened up on ND for him to start there sooner. The USHL isnt that great of a league but you cant judge a player on the USNDTP based on his play in the USHL. They should be judged on their international play IMO as thats the primary focus of the USNDTP.

Coolburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 04:40 AM
  #327
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
I dont think the elite group is that deep still. In retrospect using 06 like you've done, there really was only the top 5 guys that are considered "elite". Outside of the top 4 this yr, I dont see any as being considered "elite" 4-5 yrs from now. I dont put much stock into what Mcguire says, especially with how odd those rankings are that Central Scouting released.
Using the idea of "restrospect" doesn't work because we don't have it. It doesn't exist until after the act. I know for a fact that in 06 the Blue Jackets considered the elite group 7 deep. They had a similar range in 07. All im saying is that while clearly the Top 4 may have seperated themselves a little, there could be others considered in the elite group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Yes he didnt fall but that doesnt mean any of the other Russians this yr will be top 10 picks like him.
It signifies that Russians playing in the CHL who have enough talent to be high 1st rounders won't fall. Clearly it will also depend on the players actual talent (which opinions differ on i guess).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Actually you kept making my point, Seguin had 67 pts in 61 games as a rookie before he exploded last yr. Connolly, also had previously won the rookie of the yr, so Tampa took him based on that previously shown potential or I dont know that he goes so high after only playing 16 games. This is the same reason that teams arent as concerned with Landeskog's rapid ascent up the rankings this yr because he had that solid season last yr as a rookie coming from overseas and adjusting to NA.
I don't quite understand what we are getting at here. I think you said teams take consistency over one year wonders. Generally, teams want a development curve (steady improvement). I think that was my only point, i wasn't really hinting at anything else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
I dont blame you at all and to some extent agree on not selecting a PF. One thing I will say based on what I've read & heard, Saad has got a PF-type body but doesnt really play like a PF. To me, that sounds a bit like Horton which would probably not be a good pick for FL.

With the guys FL has drafted the last 2 yrs, they already have a few guys with size (Bjugstad, Howden, Shore, Knight, etc). I like Strome if he's available but I also wouldnt be opposed to trading up or down if other teams were willing. I'm starting to kinda think you can get a similar player at #7 as you could get at #15 IMO.
Yeah i have a similar opinion on Saad, plus there are other players there who i think have better Offensive skills.

Yes we have taken players with size, but i'd suggest that Howden, Shore and Knight have never really been billed as powerforward types at all. I just wish to stay away from the player billed as potentially mean but struggles with consistency.

I'd also say #7 is much better than #15. At #7 you can get a guy like Strome, Huberdeau etc. These players are likely going to be better than the #15 guys IMO.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:04 PM
  #328
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,901
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
Using the idea of "restrospect" doesn't work because we don't have it. It doesn't exist until after the act. I know for a fact that in 06 the Blue Jackets considered the elite group 7 deep. They had a similar range in 07. All im saying is that while clearly the Top 4 may have seperated themselves a little, there could be others considered in the elite group.
Well I'd never want to use the Blue Jackets as a team that does well in scouting, especially if you're looking back a few yrs. More often than not, the elite group is much smaller than 7 deep. Its usually 2-4 players deep leading up to the draft and this yr, its clear those 4 guys are the elite group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
It signifies that Russians playing in the CHL who have enough talent to be high 1st rounders won't fall. Clearly it will also depend on the players actual talent (which opinions differ on i guess).
Yeah but I'd guess that none of the Russians are going to be in the 1st tier and at most 1 "could" be in the next tier of the 1st round (and even then might actually be in the 3rd tier but still selected in the 1st round).
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
I don't quite understand what we are getting at here. I think you said teams take consistency over one year wonders. Generally, teams want a development curve (steady improvement). I think that was my only point, i wasn't really hinting at anything else.
Well I guess I was trying to say that a 1 yr wonder doesnt have any history of a development curve so teams wouldnt consider them as part of the elite tier of players but possibly in the next tier. And I was trying to say that if you had a player like Huberdeau and you compare him to Couturier for example, I dont you find any teams willing to take Huberdeau over Couturier and if they are, they're nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
Yeah i have a similar opinion on Saad, plus there are other players there who i think have better Offensive skills.

Yes we have taken players with size, but i'd suggest that Howden, Shore and Knight have never really been billed as powerforward types at all. I just wish to stay away from the player billed as potentially mean but struggles with consistency.

I'd also say #7 is much better than #15. At #7 you can get a guy like Strome, Huberdeau etc. These players are likely going to be better than the #15 guys IMO.
I honestly dont see the need anymore of the prototypical power forward in this league. The rule changes and the ability of small players now to be impact guys shows there's really not that need. Guys with size like we have are sufficient so long as they have speed which all of our drafted guys do.

There's still a chance that Huberdeau and Strome could be gone by #7. If thats the case, then I'd still say the forwards after them are pretty similar and yeah you could get a guy at #7 thats pretty close to #15 IMO. This is only true cause you have a few d-men that are rated around that area and FL really doesnt need to draft another d-man in the early first round. And really I dont care where they're ranked before the draft, only where they will be when all is said and done. Its quite common for a guy drafted in the middle of the round to be just as good (if not better) than a guy selected 6-7 spots earlier.

Coolburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:44 PM
  #329
Dread Clawz
fmrly MarkstromRules
 
Dread Clawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Well I'd never want to use the Blue Jackets as a team that does well in scouting, especially if you're looking back a few yrs. More often than not, the elite group is much smaller than 7 deep. Its usually 2-4 players deep leading up to the draft and this yr, its clear those 4 guys are the elite group.Yeah but I'd guess that none of the Russians are going to be in the 1st tier and at most 1 "could" be in the next tier of the 1st round (and even then might actually be in the 3rd tier but still selected in the 1st round).Well I guess I was trying to say that a 1 yr wonder doesnt have any history of a development curve so teams wouldnt consider them as part of the elite tier of players but possibly in the next tier. And I was trying to say that if you had a player like Huberdeau and you compare him to Couturier for example, I dont you find any teams willing to take Huberdeau over Couturier and if they are, they're nuts.I honestly dont see the need anymore of the prototypical power forward in this league. The rule changes and the ability of small players now to be impact guys shows there's really not that need. Guys with size like we have are sufficient so long as they have speed which all of our drafted guys do.

There's still a chance that Huberdeau and Strome could be gone by #7. If thats the case, then I'd still say the forwards after them are pretty similar and yeah you could get a guy at #7 thats pretty close to #15 IMO. This is only true cause you have a few d-men that are rated around that area and FL really doesnt need to draft another d-man in the early first round. And really I dont care where they're ranked before the draft, only where they will be when all is said and done. Its quite common for a guy drafted in the middle of the round to be just as good (if not better) than a guy selected 6-7 spots earlier.
What??? There's definitely still a need for power forwards. Precisely because of the rule changes, d-men can't stop them anymore. The rule changes are to the detriment of big physical d-men, not big physical forwards. The rule changes have allowed for more small players to have success, but it hasn't made it "a small man's game". Not at all. Power forwards rule the roost more than ever before. Look at Chicago last year as an example. Every forward line had at least one power forward, sometimes two. Byfuglien was a sensation in the playoffs two years in a row, how could you forget this? You have a team like Chicago that had three lines teeming with big power forwards who could skate and score, you can't stop that team.

Dread Clawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 04:55 PM
  #330
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,901
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
What??? There's definitely still a need for power forwards. Precisely because of the rule changes, d-men can't stop them anymore. The rule changes are to the detriment of big physical d-men, not big physical forwards. The rule changes have allowed for more small players to have success, but it hasn't made it "a small man's game". Not at all. Power forwards rule the roost more than ever before. Look at Chicago last year as an example. Every forward line had at least one power forward, sometimes two. Byfuglien was a sensation in the playoffs two years in a row, how could you forget this? You have a team like Chicago that had three lines teeming with big power forwards who could skate and score, you can't stop that team.
It really depends on your definition of "powerforward" too. Big guys who can skate and play physical to me isnt really a powerforward, those are just grinders. To me, they have be able to score, play physical and skate AND be able to fight and that combination is extremely rare in this league. You dont have to be 6'4" to be able to play physically (see Mike Richards). And just cause a guy is 6'3" doesnt mean they'll really play a powerforward type game (see Nathan Horton) or really dominate.

Regardless, teams have succeeded without anything that resembled a PF. Last yr in the playoffs, can you name a player on Montreal that was a PF and they made the conference finals? On the opposite side of the coin, San Jose has had 3 of those big players in Thornton, Marleau and Heatley and it hasnt gotten them even to the Cup finals. I really think the need of a PF-type is overrated.

Even still, with the time it takes to develop one, I wouldnt spend an early 1st on one either. Guys like Lucic can be drafted in the early 2nd round and I've got no problem with using a pick like that on that kind of a player. With an early 1st, its far too risky to use on a project like most powerforwards are going to be. And you use Byfuglien as an example of why they're needed but he was drafted in the 8th round.

Coolburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 06:03 PM
  #331
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Well I'd never want to use the Blue Jackets as a team that does well in scouting, especially if you're looking back a few yrs. More often than not, the elite group is much smaller than 7 deep. Its usually 2-4 players deep leading up to the draft and this yr, its clear those 4 guys are the elite group.
Their drafting success is inconsuequential ; there was a group 7 deep. I'd assume other teams had similar ideas. The elite group has divides in it for sure (aka the top 4 being better than the other guys) but the point is still this, you could be drafting at 6 or 7 and have a shot at the last guy in that elite group/prospects/players before the drop off. It's a pretty simply concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Yeah but I'd guess that none of the Russians are going to be in the 1st tier and at most 1 "could" be in the next tier of the 1st round (and even then might actually be in the 3rd tier but still selected in the 1st round).
I never suggested a Russian was in the 1st tier. I am merely saying that the Russian CHL players have more of a shot at going within their particular talent tier. Burmistrov highlights this. I personally think Alex Khohlachev should be be a solid mid 1st rounder but we shall see in that regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Well I guess I was trying to say that a 1 yr wonder doesnt have any history of a development curve so teams wouldnt consider them as part of the elite tier of players but possibly in the next tier. And I was trying to say that if you had a player like Huberdeau and you compare him to Couturier for example, I dont you find any teams willing to take Huberdeau over Couturier and if they are, they're nuts.
A 1 yr wonder in context of the draft is going to be A) A guy who was hyped early and fell or had a poor draft year or B) A guy who came out of relative obscurity and had an excellent draft year which signifies to scouts that more is to come. It fits the very definition of the development curve. Johansen or McIlrath would fit this deccription (though one year wonder in relation to prospects is a term that doesn't really work).

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 08:49 PM
  #332
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,901
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
Their drafting success is inconsuequential ; there was a group 7 deep. I'd assume other teams had similar ideas. The elite group has divides in it for sure (aka the top 4 being better than the other guys) but the point is still this, you could be drafting at 6 or 7 and have a shot at the last guy in that elite group/prospects/players before the drop off. It's a pretty simply concept.
I wouldnt assume other teams had any similar ratings which was my point about their past drafting success. I still think we have differing opinions on what the "elite" group really means. You're saying there's divides within the group itself and I'm saying that there's not. The "elite" group is much smaller and after that group, there's a small drop off. Like this yr, anything beyond the #5 pick and you dont have a chance at any of the top 4 guys in this yr's "elite" group. And even then I seriously doubt any team in the top 4 is going to reach for someone not in that group. At #6 or 7, the only options are going to be either Huberdeau or Strome which are not in the elite group and where that slight drop off starts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
I never suggested a Russian was in the 1st tier. I am merely saying that the Russian CHL players have more of a shot at going within their particular talent tier. Burmistrov highlights this. I personally think Alex Khohlachev should be be a solid mid 1st rounder but we shall see in that regard.
Yeah its possible they have a shot at the 1st round. But looking at McKenzie's rankings, theres a good chance that neither goes in the 1st round too. I could see one of them going in the 25-30 range though and just sneaking into the 1st round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
A 1 yr wonder in context of the draft is going to be A) A guy who was hyped early and fell or had a poor draft year or B) A guy who came out of relative obscurity and had an excellent draft year which signifies to scouts that more is to come. It fits the very definition of the development curve. Johansen or McIlrath would fit this deccription (though one year wonder in relation to prospects is a term that doesn't really work).
I dont consider a 1 yr wonder as what you said in (A). Guys who were hyped and fall off arent what I was thinking of. (B) was exactly the type of player I'm thinking of. But GMs are often reluctant to make a pick based on limited viewing ability of the scouts, particularly a very early pick. Johansen was a guy that was mostly in the 7-10 range leading up to the draft in the rankings. He went higher because of his size and filled a need for Columbus IMO (center with size). McIlrath wasnt really even in the top 10 in terms of the rankings and everyone at the draft said that was a reach and could really come back to bite the Rangers on the arse. IMO, I think it already has when they couldve had either Fowler or Gormley at #10.

Coolburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 11:14 PM
  #333
Dread Clawz
fmrly MarkstromRules
 
Dread Clawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
It really depends on your definition of "powerforward" too. Big guys who can skate and play physical to me isnt really a powerforward, those are just grinders. To me, they have be able to score, play physical and skate AND be able to fight and that combination is extremely rare in this league. You dont have to be 6'4" to be able to play physically (see Mike Richards). And just cause a guy is 6'3" doesnt mean they'll really play a powerforward type game (see Nathan Horton) or really dominate.
That's not what I illustrated with Chicago though. They had a roster loaded with powerforwards, not just grinders. I'm not saying that is the only way to success, but it's a good way to build a forward group if you can do that. I understand the definition of powerforward, I agree guys like Horton aren't powerforwards, and Richards is one. You don't have to be that big to be a powerforward, but it helps. Chicago had a team full of big, mean talented forwards who drove to the net and won battles in the corners.

Quote:
Regardless, teams have succeeded without anything that resembled a PF. Last yr in the playoffs, can you name a player on Montreal that was a PF and they made the conference finals? On the opposite side of the coin, San Jose has had 3 of those big players in Thornton, Marleau and Heatley and it hasnt gotten them even to the Cup finals. I really think the need of a PF-type is overrated.
I think most would agree though that Montreal overachieved in the playoffs last year. Ideally I don't think anyone wants to build their team with Montreal's roster as the pinnacle blueprint. They got to the ECF because of 3 main things, Halak, a good tight team defensive scheme, and timely/lucky goals(Moore turning into Mark Messier, as an example). If you want to build a team that can sustain long term success, you wouldn't use Montreal as the example. Again, I'm not saying building a team like Tallon wants to do is the only way, but it's a good way, and powerforwards are still very important, and important to any contender's success really. Every contender has at least one or two good ones, if not more. You need to complement your skill guys with big guys who can go into traffic, crash the net, and win physical battles. In the playoffs, that kind of play is really what wins games(Washington, I'm looking at you as the antithesis of that). Now they realize that they need to tighten their team defense up and play dirtier heading into the playoffs if they want to have more success there, that's all you here coming out of there now.

None of Marleau, Heatley, or Thornton are powerforwards.

Quote:
Even still, with the time it takes to develop one, I wouldnt spend an early 1st on one either. Guys like Lucic can be drafted in the early 2nd round and I've got no problem with using a pick like that on that kind of a player. With an early 1st, its far too risky to use on a project like most powerforwards are going to be. And you use Byfuglien as an example of why they're needed but he was drafted in the 8th round.
I'm of the mind that you should take the BPA. If the BPA is a powerforward, take him. Lucic is actually a good example of a guy who didn't take long to develop. Any type of player can be drafted anywhere, I really think that theory is misguided. "Elite d-men can be drafted in the second round". Well, so can elite forwards. A lot of them come from the second round too. Not all powerforwards are projects. Lindros wasn't a project. Nolan wasn't a project. Wendel Clark wasn't a project. Okposo wasn't a project, etc. etc. Again, Byfuglien was drafted in the 8th round....Zetterburg was drafted in like the 6th round and Datsyuk the 7th or something like that. Alfredsson was late pick too, etc. Obviously there will be project players of every type in late rounds, but if there is a prospect identified as being a top prospect in the draft and he's a powerforward, then it's a much safer bet you'll be getting a good player in him than a guy you pick in the 7th round who's a big project and you give maybe a 2% chance of ever doing anything.

Dread Clawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2011, 04:51 AM
  #334
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
I wouldnt assume other teams had any similar ratings which was my point about their past drafting success. I still think we have differing opinions on what the "elite" group really means. You're saying there's divides within the group itself and I'm saying that there's not. The "elite" group is much smaller and after that group, there's a small drop off. Like this yr, anything beyond the #5 pick and you dont have a chance at any of the top 4 guys in this yr's "elite" group. And even then I seriously doubt any team in the top 4 is going to reach for someone not in that group. At #6 or 7, the only options are going to be either Huberdeau or Strome which are not in the elite group and where that slight drop off starts.
It's pretty simple. In 06, the Blue Jackets had a list of 7 players they defined as elite. Of course they still had a difference between Johnson and Brassard. It's perfectly reasonable to say that teams have Murphy, Strome etc as players like Brassard. They consider them elite blue chip guys, but obviously wouldn't take them that high. Drop-offs exist within tiers too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Yeah its possible they have a shot at the 1st round. But looking at McKenzie's rankings, theres a good chance that neither goes in the 1st round too. I could see one of them going in the 25-30 range though and just sneaking into the 1st round.
I think if both continue to have strong years then we will see them go in the 1st round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
I dont consider a 1 yr wonder as what you said in (A). Guys who were hyped and fall off arent what I was thinking of. (B) was exactly the type of player I'm thinking of. But GMs are often reluctant to make a pick based on limited viewing ability of the scouts, particularly a very early pick. Johansen was a guy that was mostly in the 7-10 range leading up to the draft in the rankings. He went higher because of his size and filled a need for Columbus IMO (center with size). McIlrath wasnt really even in the top 10 in terms of the rankings and everyone at the draft said that was a reach and could really come back to bite the Rangers on the arse. IMO, I think it already has when they couldve had either Fowler or Gormley at #10.
The term one year wonder is an awful term in relation to this discussion. Clearly you cannot begin to define if they one year wonders or not. Rather, those type of players get taken high based on the sick development curve they are showing. Johansen wasn't Top 100 material going into his draft year and rose to 4. I think by draft day he was actually considered to be a likely Top 5 pick and that is where he went. He's the very definition of a guy with a large development curve shooting up the rankings. I think McIlrath was a reach, but NHL teams don't. I know for a fact Edmonton had him in their Top 10. Im sure other teams did too. He actually went right around where i think he was ranked by many NHL teams. Though clearly draft rankings are all over the place on alot of teams. Seguin would also count in this scenario ; he was a possible 1st round pick going into his draft year, but certainly was considered behind osme of other guys.

I think Fowler and Gormley are better prospects than McIlrath too, but it is premature to suggest that it is already biting them in the ass. I think taking Gudbranson at #3 will turn into a small mistake, but we'll need years to see if this is correct

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 10:55 AM
  #335
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,382
vCash: 500
How many picks do you think we will have in the first two rounds? I'd say two first round picks and four maybe five second round picks(already have Montreal's second). We're going to have a ridiculous amount of prospects.

RainingRats is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 04:25 PM
  #336
Dread Clawz
fmrly MarkstromRules
 
Dread Clawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainingRats View Post
How many picks do you think we will have in the first two rounds? I'd say two first round picks and four maybe five second round picks(already have Montreal's second). We're going to have a ridiculous amount of prospects.
Where are we getting all those picks from? I assume the other 1st is coming from a Vokoun trade. IF he's traded though, idk if I see a 1st coming back, but a 2nd definitely or equivalent value. Stillman MIGHT return a 2nd, more likely a 3rd though. Bernier-3rd or 4th. Caber would probably return a 2nd or good prospect, not sure though. He will have to be back in the lineup by then and playing a few games for that to happen. I think we re-sign Higgins and Reasoner. Not really sure about anyone else.

So I'd say conservatively, one 1st, three-four 2nds. And then two-four 3rds(we have Boston's 3rd). Should be another good draft. I don't think we will have as many picks as last year though.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Repik. He'll be waiver eligible next training camp, so if he doesn't make the team then we'd have to trade him anyway or risk losing him on waivers like we did with Grabner. Tallon might just figure he'll trade him at the draft then for a 2nd or something, for a team looking for a more immediate prospect.

Dread Clawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 04:49 PM
  #337
RainingRats
Registered User
 
RainingRats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Where are we getting all those picks from? I assume the other 1st is coming from a Vokoun trade. IF he's traded though, idk if I see a 1st coming back, but a 2nd definitely or equivalent value. Stillman MIGHT return a 2nd, more likely a 3rd though. Bernier-3rd or 4th. Caber would probably return a 2nd or good prospect, not sure though. He will have to be back in the lineup by then and playing a few games for that to happen. I think we re-sign Higgins and Reasoner. Not really sure about anyone else.

So I'd say conservatively, one 1st, three-four 2nds. And then two-four 3rds(we have Boston's 3rd). Should be another good draft. I don't think we will have as many picks as last year though.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Repik. He'll be waiver eligible next training camp, so if he doesn't make the team then we'd have to trade him anyway or risk losing him on waivers like we did with Grabner. Tallon might just figure he'll trade him at the draft then for a 2nd or something, for a team looking for a more immediate prospect.
I think Tallon will trade some players including Allen, possibly Wideman(if he can get a first), and I have a bad feeling about Frolik being moved. All three would be at or before the draft.

RainingRats 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 11:36 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.