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

Adam Courchaine

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-29-2005, 08:40 AM
  #26
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
I think Courchaine's fans were a lot more vocal than his detractors (at least on the message boards). I've read a couple of posts from guys who seriously questioned whether he had what it takes to take a shift in the NHL. I've never seen the kid, so I've got no basis for opinion. Wouldn't have minded seeing a cheap two-way deal putting him in Houston, though.

ceber is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 08:48 AM
  #27
Wild Thing
Registered User
 
Wild Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Dark Side
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoobieDoobieDo
Then Tommy Thompson is talking out of his ass, because all he has said about these prospects is how much they have progressed since they were drafted and such.
Well of course that's what they're going to say. That's coachspeak. That's what they always say. You don't run down your own prospects, because what's the point? Why malign some decent, hardworking kid in the media? Why embarrass him? And anyway, you never know what GM may be getting ready to offer you something for the kid. It's foolish to announce to the entire world that you've already given up on him, and that he probably won't be in your organization for long.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DoobieDoobieDo
Two years is way to early to give up on a prospect. Hey you know here's a weird idea? Why don't we see how they do in the ECHL/AHL before we drop the ball on them. Guess that didn't really work for Brust who had some decent numbers in the ECHL last year and should see some action in the AHL next year.
Since when is two years way too early to give up on a prospect? What's the appropriate interval, then? Three years? Five years? Let's meet in the middle and say four. OK, if you hang on to every prospect for at least four years before making any kind of decision with them, that means you'd have about 18 to 20 more prospects under contract at any given time. Where are you going to put them? Where are they going to play? It just doesn't make any sense. You could have the entire CHL under contract just because you're scared to death of missing out on some late bloomer, but you'd never notice how good any of them were because you just wouldn't have the time or the resources to evaluate any of them.

Most of these later-round choices have so many holes in their game, they're lucky to get drafted in the first place. They've got one foot out the door the minute they set foot inside the organization, and if they don't show solid improvement within two years the coaching staff and the scouting staff need to move on and start focusing on the next group of kids - the kids who are still improving, or do show some signs of being able to. If you're a borderline player who isn't much better at age 20 than you were at age 18, your chances of being an NHL player are just about nil. Yes, I know there are some exceptions to the rule, but it's very rare, and it's not worth keeping every draft choice you ever made under contract just so you don't miss out on that one potential 4th-liner or 3rd-string goalie.

And please don't give me the "we need bodies" business, either. What we need is bodies who can play hockey. If they haven't made an impression by the time they're 20, they have to get out of the way and let some other kids have their chance. That's just the way it works.


Last edited by Wild Thing: 07-29-2005 at 09:06 AM.
Wild Thing is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 08:57 AM
  #28
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Courchaine's an overager, isn't he? So not signing him makes him a free agent?

Could be the team wanted to sign him, but on FA terms instead of rookie contract terms. Team might get a better deal that way. I have a feeling that's not the case, though. Hopefully he'll get a shot somewhere.

ceber is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 10:47 AM
  #29
Blackadder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 133
vCash: 500
out of curiousity, how fast were the guys they didn't sign? They claim to have dumped bruno because he wasn't fast enough for the new NHL. Were there speed concerns with these guys?

Blackadder is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 11:09 AM
  #30
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,477
vCash: 1850
Adam C is not speedy gonzales

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 11:59 AM
  #31
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Thing
Since when is two years way too early to give up on a prospect? What's the appropriate interval, then? Three years? Five years? Let's meet in the middle and say four. OK, if you hang on to every prospect for at least four years before making any kind of decision with them, that means you'd have about 18 to 20 more prospects under contract at any given time. Where are you going to put them? Where are they going to play? It just doesn't make any sense. You could have the entire CHL under contract just because you're scared to death of missing out on some late bloomer, but you'd never notice how good any of them were because you just wouldn't have the time or the resources to evaluate any of them.

Most of these later-round choices have so many holes in their game, they're lucky to get drafted in the first place.

And please don't give me the "we need bodies" business, either. What we need is bodies who can play hockey. If they haven't made an impression by the time they're 20, they have to get out of the way and let some other kids have their chance. That's just the way it works.
We haven't shown ANY reluctancy to give up on some players that have shown SQUAT in the AHL or in the ECHL. Wanvig immediately comes to mind. Foy and Heid, by your definition should be immediately gone too, because hey! They have done squat in the last few years.

What Minnesota NEEDS is simply prospects in their system. How many do they have currently developing in the AHL at the moment? I can think of three that are under contract and they are by large major projects at this moment. Why not add a few guys to that and see if any of them turn out? If they don't live up to anything by the end of their contract (usually another 2 or 3 years) then cut them? Hell if they aren't, swap bodies with someone else that could take on another year or so of their contracts.

I said this before and I'll say it again. The 2003 draft was one of the deepest. Guys like Melanson and Bolduc (who were RANKED high) were passed over because of attitude problems with their coaches and their teams.

Why the hell haven't we traded THELEN or why is he still in our system if that's the case? He has shown the same problems as these two guys and yet, everyone still thinks he just needs to turn around in the WHL. BULL if that is the case with Melanson and Bolduc, who both showed they turned around their game in the CHL, why didn't we sign them? And are we going to sign Thelen? They shouldn't because he is immature and he gave up on his team.

WHAT OTHER KIDS? We have NO ONE IN OUR SYSTEM CURRENTLY PLAYING IN THE AHL!

Seriously! We got Foy, Stokes, Heid, and Boogaard at the moment. Wallin and Veilleux are in their mid 20s.

We have NO PROSPECTS what so ever developing in our system currently.

I can see the case for the Wild, maybe they wanted too much money but seriously, we need bodies in the AHL developing. As I said, see how they work out, if they don't work out so great, SWAP THEM. Some other team might like them but at least give them a few years to see if they can't develop their game more!

We have what? Maybe 1 player in the 2003 draft currently developing in the AHL if he goes there? Yeah, that's great.

1 guy out of our 2002 draft...

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 12:49 PM
  #32
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,948
vCash: 528
It probably has to do with a player's toolbox, and their upside. Courchaine is smallish, perhaps not a great skater - that right there is reason enough not to sign him. He doesn't have some of Foy's tools, i.e. size, speed. Those alone make Foy a player worth investing in, because he has the tools to develop into a better player, i.e. NHL caliber.

Look at Eric Johanssen - Wild late round draft pick, good WHL scorer; average size and skating. The Wild didn't sign him - re reentered the draft, Jersey picked him. He played a season at Albany, then last season was demoted to the ECHL. Similar players, similar fates.

Surly Furious is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 01:43 PM
  #33
chaachie12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 723
vCash: 500
then why draft them at all? If they know ahead of time that these aren't the type of players we want why do they draft them? There are still big guys, and good skaters left in the late rounds...

chaachie12 is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 02:05 PM
  #34
Blackadder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 133
vCash: 500
Well, before the rules changes they were what we were looking for. After the rules changes the front office is changing the direction of the team. I doubt you'll see us drafting people that fit the mold of Adam this year and going forward.

Blackadder is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 02:16 PM
  #35
MePutPuckInNet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
I hope I can get my thoughts across so they don't sound like I'm trying to be a schmuck...but my brain isn't working, so just try to see where I'm going...

i'm copying this directly from the HF site can't find the page now but i had it a second ago:

Anyway, this is how things were in the OLD CBA:

"For players that are drafted out of the junior hockey league system, an organization has the exclusive negotiating rights over the draftee for a minimum of one year, expiring on June 1, two years after selection. This is outlined in § 8.6(a). If the organization makes a “qualifying” offer to the draftee within that one year and is rejected by the draftee, the organization still retains the draftee’s rights for an additional year."

-------
the thing is, that under the old cba the qualifying offer only had to be the league minimum of whatever it was [and i can't remember was it $150,000.00? anyway whatever the minimum was that's all a qualifying offer had to be]. Effectively, all a team had to do was offer a player the league minimum - while knowing that NO prospect would actually accept that offer - [cuz, who would, eh?]. Basically, this was a root cause of the lack of parity in the league. Since a team could just retain the rights of a player by offering them a bag of dirt. This held the prospect in their system,,,even though they may not have felt the player was quite ready for the Show, or maybe the team didn't have money to sign them to a "real" contract..or for whatever the friggin reason....the team could hang on to a prospect for an extra year just by giving them what was basically a bogus "bona fide offer".

By raising the league minimum to what is it now $450k, i think? This effectively put a stop to that practice.

Trust me here, the Wild are NOT the only team dumping prospects in their system. It makes a team think and think hard now before even issuing a qualifying offer to someone in their reserve tank.

It sucks, but it does make sense, too. And although it'll hurt for a while, it's going to hurt EVERY team, equally for the next year or two....after that, I think it'll really be a good thing.

For now though, it's the way of the "New World" so, everyone's just gonna have to deal.

MePutPuckInNet is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 02:38 PM
  #36
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,319
vCash: 500
Actually I think Wallin was getting around 300-400 thousand dollars...

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 02:48 PM
  #37
MePutPuckInNet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
The other thing I forgot to mention, although you probably figured it out, but since I'm going through the pain of thinking anyway, I might as well share...

But, the effect of this, in my opinion, is going to be very good for the QUALITY of professional hockey players - eventually.

Teams are going to have to scout differently, so they can draft better....and the trickle down theory of that would indicate that there will come a time when a 'just barely passable prospect' won't continue to be filtered into the NHL. [Hooray for skill, woooo hoooo!]. This will also mean fewer "acceptable errors" for scouting/drafting....as well as fewer prospects in general. There just won't be as many players that are truly NHL worthy...and a team won't have to pick a player, just cuz they have a pick in the 9th or 10th round.....That's why they lowered the draft to 7 rounds. Sure, it may take a while for all this to really show in the league, but you gotta start somewhere...and you may as well start at the beginning, which is what the new CBA really is. A beginning to a real change in the game. Not just economics but, business sense and more importantly, quality of the game.

MePutPuckInNet is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 02:56 PM
  #38
MePutPuckInNet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
well wallin may have been getting 300-400k, but not all of that was actual salary. that was because the league min. was 150k [or something close to that] and then he was getting 150k in signing bonus.

MePutPuckInNet is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 04:24 PM
  #39
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
I agree with MePutPuckInNet. This is a good thing. Better quality throughout. The more marginal guys will become UFAs quicker, and the best of them will spread throughout the league. I think it's good for those players, too. Gives them freedom sooner.

ceber is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 04:35 PM
  #40
jallu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 37
vCash: 500
Location England

jumptheshark
CRAZY CANUCK

So you did see 60 games Adam played from England??

jallu is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 06:08 PM
  #41
chaachie12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 723
vCash: 500
they wouldn't be making 450k in Houston. These prospects have 2 way deals right? If this is truly the way it is going to be you might as well shut down the draft after round 2. You make a lot of sense puck, but I guess I am down on just wasting draft picks.

chaachie12 is offline  
Old
07-29-2005, 11:52 PM
  #42
DW
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
All the better that the new CBA has a rumored change in the drafting age. This will help teams to better define some of these guys over a longer period of time (one extra year.)

I'll have to say that I'm not that disappointed that these guys were not signed. (surprised at first though) I would like the Wild to take a chance on guys once in a while but overall I like the fact that they don't sign every guy just because they were the team to draft a certain prospect. They have reasons for not signing guys that we (fans) want to see. I have to believe they're judging more by potential down the road then looking at the short term (filling rosters-for one thing.) Clearly these guys have a little more knowledge of our prospects then we do. I'm sure they'll lose out on a guy or two, but there won't be a ton of these late round picks that the Wild will let go that turn out to be NHL players.

DW is offline  
Old
07-30-2005, 06:16 AM
  #43
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,477
vCash: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jallu
jumptheshark
CRAZY CANUCK

So you did see 60 games Adam played from England??
I lived in Vancouver from 1990 to early 2004(Crazy Canuck mmmmmmm....coould be a nick name for a Canadian Eh?)

I was a season ticket holder since the Giants started in the WHL and went to every game(the fights in the stands during the first year was rather fun)


Last edited by jumptheshark: 07-30-2005 at 06:20 AM. Reason: becasue i can
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
07-30-2005, 07:56 AM
  #44
jallu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 37
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark
I lived in Vancouver from 1990 to early 2004(Crazy Canuck mmmmmmm....coould be a nick name for a Canadian Eh?)

I was a season ticket holder since the Giants started in the WHL and went to every game(the fights in the stands during the first year was rather fun)

Ok,I was just kidding. As a canuck fan this could interest you. Lumme making his comeback.
http://www.ilves.com/uutinen270705b.php

jallu is offline  
Old
07-31-2005, 07:36 AM
  #45
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,477
vCash: 1850
I liked Lumme

a of his friends in the Kits and West Van area were shocked that he went back to Finland after his career was over--he took out his Canadian citz and his family loved in Vancouver

jumptheshark is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:03 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.