HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Florida Panthers
Notices

2012 NHL Entry Draft: Wants and Needs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2012, 02:08 PM
  #126
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SufferingCatFan View Post
The Red Line Report has the Panthers taking Tanner Pearson in it's Mock Draft. I am hoping that Olli Maatta slips to us.
God no. I would love Maatta, but I don't think he'll fall to 23. He should go around 15 based on his play at the end of the season and in the playoffs. For the record, this is the same agency who said they didn't think Gudbranson and Granlund should be top 10 picks before the 2010 draft. Let's hope their brilliance continues.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:15 PM
  #127
AwesomePanthers
Go Quacks!
 
AwesomePanthers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 8,596
vCash: 500
I'm kind of hoping for Hertl, Byström or Girgensons (Girgs is a big IF, because he is likely gone). Byström is an interesting defenseman imo.

AwesomePanthers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 12:28 AM
  #128
Clint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 6,340
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Clint
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
We need offense.
Yeah, next season. The draft is about 5 and 10 seasons down the road. Our prospect pool as of now is pretty set offensively. Huberdeau, Bjugstad, Howden, Shore, Grimaldi, and even Trochek and Rau seem to have top 6 upside. Next to Petrovic and Robak, we don't have any potential top 4 defensemen, except for perhaps Bengtsson.

Clint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 11:05 AM
  #129
I May Be Wrong
I May Be The Stig
 
I May Be Wrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 8,373
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to I May Be Wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint View Post
Yeah, next season. The draft is about 5 and 10 seasons down the road. Our prospect pool as of now is pretty set offensively. Huberdeau, Bjugstad, Howden, Shore, Grimaldi, and even Trochek and Rau seem to have top 6 upside. Next to Petrovic and Robak, we don't have any potential top 4 defensemen, except for perhaps Bengtsson.
and by all accounts, his season wasn't really a good one at all. So hopefully he can make some serious progress next season.

I May Be Wrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 11:40 AM
  #130
Sports24-7
Registered User
 
Sports24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I think Tallon will try to trade up. I think Ellerby will be used as bait as well. But if we pick at #23 I think we'll be just fine, I think you're selling this draft a little short. There's no doubt we'll get a good defense prospect, or if we decide to go with a goalie then there are a few really good ones.
When Fialkov was individually going over what the Panthers would do with certain players in the offseason a few weeks back, in the blurb about a few players he mentioned potentially using them to trade up in the 1st. Santorelli was named, I believe Ellerby was named, and a couple others. I'm not sure Fialkov has any inside knowledge on them looking to move specific players to get higher in the draft, but he seemed to be under the impression that was going to be something they were looking to do. I hope he's right.

Sports24-7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:10 PM
  #131
angry_treefrog
Moderator
T63813A
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sports24-7 View Post
When Fialkov was individually going over what the Panthers would do with certain players in the offseason a few weeks back, in the blurb about a few players he mentioned potentially using them to trade up in the 1st. Santorelli was named, I believe Ellerby was named, and a couple others. I'm not sure Fialkov has any inside knowledge on them looking to move specific players to get higher in the draft, but he seemed to be under the impression that was going to be something they were looking to do. I hope he's right.
I doubt Tallon would be able to exchange Santorelli in exchange for moving up one spot in the buffet line, much less the draft.

__________________
FLORIDA PANTHERS EPISODE XX: A NEW HOPE



angry_treefrog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 09:32 PM
  #132
Sports24-7
Registered User
 
Sports24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
I doubt Tallon would be able to exchange Santorelli in exchange for moving up one spot in the buffet line, much less the draft.
That's just one of the names he mentioned. I doubt he really knows their plans in regards to any player, but my point was that with a few of them he brought up the idea of moving up in the draft, so maybe that's something that has legs.

Sports24-7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 10:04 PM
  #133
Beezer
I'm Da Better Goalie
 
Beezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Country: Brazil
Posts: 6,332
vCash: 500
I think Colton Sissons would be a great addition to our organization. Here are a couple of scouting reports on him:

Quote:
Colton Sissons is a great prospect for the NHL draft. Sissons does everything. A transitioned winger, Sissons has a good shot, is working on his faceoffs and best of all, he is a tremendous leader in the dressing room and on the the ice. Sissons is not afraid to stick up for teammates and is dangerous and relentless on the forecheck and backcheck.

What is not to like? In my opinion, Sissons is the complete package.
Quote:
NHL Central Scouting made Colton Sissons the highest rated prospect in this year’s draft from the Western Hockey League (WHL) for a reason; the guy can flat out play the game of hockey. His numbers that he put up throughout his CHL career certainly don’t jump off the page at you; however he brings a complete game to the rink every night. Sissons stands at 6’ 1” and weighs 195 pounds and let me tell you good luck getting him off the puck. He is the definition of a power forward and this will certainly help his draft stock as teams are always looking to add size and players that aren’t scared to dig in the corners.

What stands out most about Colton Sissons other than his size are his leadership capabilities. He was named team Captain of the Kelowna Rockets this past year and he always was matched against the best players the WHL had to offer. On top of that he was invited to the CHL top prospects game where he was named team Captain of Team Orr. This guy is a leader in every level of hockey he has played and he instantly earns respect for his heart and soul style of play. He is a shut down defensive forward who will contribute offensively at an NHL level. He is a high energy player who always knows where he needs to be at the right times on the ice. Any team in the NHL would be happy to have a character guy like Colton Sissons be a part of their organization. After a few years in the AHL Sissons should be ready to make is impact in the NHL. Trust me this is a guy who has already proven he can succeed at any level and the NHL will be no different.
I bolded what I liked and the fact he is a transitioned winger means he can also play wing and he fits the mold for players Tallon likes. One scouting report says he is comparable to Mike Richards.

Beezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 10:14 PM
  #134
Beezer
I'm Da Better Goalie
 
Beezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Country: Brazil
Posts: 6,332
vCash: 500
Pontus Aberg would also fit in nicely IMO.

Beezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 06:23 AM
  #135
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,715
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
I think Tallon will try to trade up. I think Ellerby will be used as bait as well. But if we pick at #23 I think we'll be just fine, I think you're selling this draft a little short. There's no doubt we'll get a good defense prospect, or if we decide to go with a goalie then there are a few really good ones.
I wasnt referring to the 1st round and where we're picking only. I think we can snag a decent player at that spot. I'm referring to the whole draft itself. I felt like the 2nd round and beyond could be very questionable regarding getting decent NHL prospects. So I figured why not trade up in the 1st round and get a really good prospect there and then you can take some projects with our late round picks. Unless Tallon really thinks we're going to regress, I'd just delay sending our 2nd rounder to complete the Versteeg trade and use that 2nd to move up (guys like Ellerby or Santorelli wont be what teams trade for to move up/down in a draft).

If we moved Ellerby, I would assume it would be for a package of picks for next yr honestly. Santorelli is next to worthless so if we could get anyone to take him for a late round pick, I'd accept it in a heartbeat. In the end, I think we may end up dealing him for some help in the AHL for a guy on a 2-way contract.

Coolburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 04:03 PM
  #136
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sports24-7 View Post
When Fialkov was individually going over what the Panthers would do with certain players in the offseason a few weeks back, in the blurb about a few players he mentioned potentially using them to trade up in the 1st. Santorelli was named, I believe Ellerby was named, and a couple others. I'm not sure Fialkov has any inside knowledge on them looking to move specific players to get higher in the draft, but he seemed to be under the impression that was going to be something they were looking to do. I hope he's right.
Yeah, I read that. Idk about Santorelli, but Ellerby could be one. Or we could trade Ellerby for a lower pick. With 8 d-men signed to 1-way contracts next season, I just see Ellerby getting moved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezer View Post
I think Colton Sissons would be a great addition to our organization. Here are a couple of scouting reports on him:





I bolded what I liked and the fact he is a transitioned winger means he can also play wing and he fits the mold for players Tallon likes. One scouting report says he is comparable to Mike Richards.
Comparing him to Mike Richards is extremely generous IMO. I think he's a less talented, slower version of Howden. Which is still a good player, but nothing close to Richards. At #23 though, I think we can do better. If we trade down though I wouldn't necessarily mind him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
I wasnt referring to the 1st round and where we're picking only. I think we can snag a decent player at that spot. I'm referring to the whole draft itself. I felt like the 2nd round and beyond could be very questionable regarding getting decent NHL prospects. So I figured why not trade up in the 1st round and get a really good prospect there and then you can take some projects with our late round picks. Unless Tallon really thinks we're going to regress, I'd just delay sending our 2nd rounder to complete the Versteeg trade and use that 2nd to move up (guys like Ellerby or Santorelli wont be what teams trade for to move up/down in a draft).

If we moved Ellerby, I would assume it would be for a package of picks for next yr honestly. Santorelli is next to worthless so if we could get anyone to take him for a late round pick, I'd accept it in a heartbeat. In the end, I think we may end up dealing him for some help in the AHL for a guy on a 2-way contract.
I actually think this draft is pretty deep, there's just not a lot of top end talent.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:52 AM
  #137
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
I would disagree with the notion that this draft lacks top end talent. Infact, i would suggest it is the reverse. This draft lacks serious depth (At Forward especially), but has a core of 8/9 guys at the top of the draft who all have high end abilities. I think the Top 20 is probably good, but we will see a much weaker 2nd round onwards than usual.

Yakupov, Grigorenko, Forsberg, Teravainen and Galchenyuk are for me as good, if not better, than the Forward group from last year. The Defense is much deeper at the top than it was last year.

As for who Florida may take, i suspect it will be one of the available 2nd or 3rd Tier Defenseman. Koekoek/Finn/Skej seem to be in our range, given i don't see Ceci/Maatta/Lindholm falling.

The Forward options at our slot don't particularly excite me. Collberg will likely be available, and has some very nice abilities, but i worry he'll struggle to translate to the NHL given his frame. Aberg is a slight unknown quantity, given the post WJ injuries he suffered. I like Hertl, but developmental issues may exist if he stays in the Czech Republic. Certainly outside of skating concerns, he may be the best option. Samuelsson seems to be rising and seems a late 1st type. Perhaps you couldn't say he's a bad pick, given you'll get a solid gritty NHL player, however i don't see significant upside there.

Gaunce might be available, and i guess he's a solid option too. Won't be a prolific NHL scorer or anything, but again, he'll be a solid versatile NHL Forward. Wilson is also a possibility, and unfortunately, i can imagine Tallon and co being relatively high on him. I wouldn't touch him in the 1st ; offensive abilities are really lacking. You have some Russian options but i don't see that as a move our management/scouting would do.

Maybe Jankowski is an option. Weak competition, but big body, supposedly high upside, and definitely a riskier pick than the Samuelsson, Gaunce type, but he's more projectable in terms of upside.

I saw a Subban/Florida interview on TSN, and can imagine us being high on him. Came accross pretty well. Unfortunately i think drafting a Goalie in the 1st is strategically not wise. They are the hardest player type to project (See Pickard, McCollum and maybe Campbell recently) and they have the longest time frame for development. Markstrom, dubbed a special goaltending prospect, was drafted 4 years ago, and still isn't NHL ready. Even if they are, 4/5 years later, due to Goaltending only having 1 available position, it means it's a much harder spot to crack. 1st round picks like Rask, Schneider and Bernier all wait for their '1 spot in the NHL, because they happen to be behind Good established goaltenders already. Perhaps this isn't quite the case with Florida, given we have no percieved #1 here, but by and large, even if you draft and develop a #1 Goaltender, there is no guarantee he even plays for you 5/6 years after, because Goaltending today is so competitive with so few available slots.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 10:43 AM
  #138
AwesomePanthers
Go Quacks!
 
AwesomePanthers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 8,596
vCash: 500
If Collberg is there, we should take him and run. But I just don't see it, same with Girgensons. But a defenseman I'm pretty high on is Byström, we should definitely target him. Big body and does well in all aspects of the game, and an extremely good skater.

Byström is my favorite pick at the moment, but it's gonna be extremely difficult to predict who will be available at that spot. We'll see when we're getting closer to our selection.

And there are tons of good prospects in this draft, as in every one. The talent level is very close when we come to 15-30, so it's impossible to predict who will be there. And there is always some higher prospects falling (someone like Eberle/Schroeder, but high-end offensive talents that we're taking late 1st.. but on the other hand you got Espesito). We'll see what happens, but Byström/Girgensons/Collberg should be very good players.

AwesomePanthers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 11:23 AM
  #139
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBluff View Post
I would disagree with the notion that this draft lacks top end talent. Infact, i would suggest it is the reverse. This draft lacks serious depth (At Forward especially), but has a core of 8/9 guys at the top of the draft who all have high end abilities. I think the Top 20 is probably good, but we will see a much weaker 2nd round onwards than usual.

Yakupov, Grigorenko, Forsberg, Teravainen and Galchenyuk are for me as good, if not better, than the Forward group from last year. The Defense is much deeper at the top than it was last year.
I definitely disagree. The forward crop from last year has turned out pretty good. RNH is already a bonafide star, Landeskog is already looking like he's on the path to be the next Iginla as he was touted to be and will probably win the Calder, Couturier had a great statisitcal season considering he spent most of it on the 4th line and is a future Selke contender, Huby looks great, Zibanejad has looked terrific in international competition, even Scheifele got a long look in training camp.

Yakupov is still Yakupov, but Grigorenko is falling due to questions about his work ethic and intensity. Gally is a fav of mine but there will still be an aura of uncertainty about him until he proves he can bounce back fully from his injury. Forsberg and Teravainen look like great talents but not enough to push this group over last year's. The defense is definitely deeper than last year's top end group, but overall last year and 2010 had more top end talent in the top half of the 1st round for sure I would say. There are a lot of quality prospects I like in this draft, but they're not guys with star talent. We've even seen guys like Collberg, Aberg, and Gaunce fall recently in some rankings. This is turning out to be a weak draft in terms of top end talent. IMO there will be a lot of good value picks through the first 3-4 rounds.

Quote:
As for who Florida may take, i suspect it will be one of the available 2nd or 3rd Tier Defenseman. Koekoek/Finn/Skej seem to be in our range, given i don't see Ceci/Maatta/Lindholm falling.

The Forward options at our slot don't particularly excite me. Collberg will likely be available, and has some very nice abilities, but i worry he'll struggle to translate to the NHL given his frame. Aberg is a slight unknown quantity, given the post WJ injuries he suffered. I like Hertl, but developmental issues may exist if he stays in the Czech Republic. Certainly outside of skating concerns, he may be the best option. Samuelsson seems to be rising and seems a late 1st type. Perhaps you couldn't say he's a bad pick, given you'll get a solid gritty NHL player, however i don't see significant upside there.

Gaunce might be available, and i guess he's a solid option too. Won't be a prolific NHL scorer or anything, but again, he'll be a solid versatile NHL Forward. Wilson is also a possibility, and unfortunately, i can imagine Tallon and co being relatively high on him. I wouldn't touch him in the 1st ; offensive abilities are really lacking. You have some Russian options but i don't see that as a move our management/scouting would do.

Maybe Jankowski is an option. Weak competition, but big body, supposedly high upside, and definitely a riskier pick than the Samuelsson, Gaunce type, but he's more projectable in terms of upside.
I dont care who else is there, if Gaunce is available when we pick then I want him. He's not going to be a prolific scorer like you said, but he will do pretty much everything else at a high level and I think his offensive upside is being seriously overlooked. Could be another Couturier-like situation. Gaunce would give us great depth up the middle going forward. Jankowski seems interesting but more of a late 1st/early 2nd. I was high on Hertl but I've kind of changed my mind because of his slow-footedness. I certainly wouldn't mind him but I'd prefer others at 23. Samuelsson would be solid pick, and I'd take him at around 26-30, but not at 23. I honestly don't see us being high on Wilson. He's the kind of project an established contender takes who can afford such a risk, we really need to keep building. Character, size, and physicality are important to our management team, but so is skill. I don't think Wilson showed enough offensive ability this season despite his terrific playoffs. I know Wilson is consistently ranked around #20, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he fell like a rock.

Quote:
I saw a Subban/Florida interview on TSN, and can imagine us being high on him. Came accross pretty well. Unfortunately i think drafting a Goalie in the 1st is strategically not wise. They are the hardest player type to project (See Pickard, McCollum and maybe Campbell recently) and they have the longest time frame for development. Markstrom, dubbed a special goaltending prospect, was drafted 4 years ago, and still isn't NHL ready. Even if they are, 4/5 years later, due to Goaltending only having 1 available position, it means it's a much harder spot to crack. 1st round picks like Rask, Schneider and Bernier all wait for their '1 spot in the NHL, because they happen to be behind Good established goaltenders already. Perhaps this isn't quite the case with Florida, given we have no percieved #1 here, but by and large, even if you draft and develop a #1 Goaltender, there is no guarantee he even plays for you 5/6 years after, because Goaltending today is so competitive with so few available slots.
Subban is starting to grow on me. He had an excellent interview and did terrific at the combine, performed the best out of any goalie. You're starting to see him be the first ranked goalie on most lists. Picking a goalie in the 1st can be kind of a gamble due to the competitiveness of the position, but I'd be fine with us taking that gamble. I don't see it as a risk of Subban not making it, I see it as hedging our bets that between Markstrom and Subban there's a great chance that one of them would make it and succeed. I think goaltending is a little different that way because if just one of your goalie prospects turns into a good player, that's a success on that front.

I'd say odds are we pick a d-man though. I think either Koekkoek, Bystrom, or Skjei most likely. I could see Finn going higher than most expect, and I've seen Maatta drop a little on a couple recent lists, although I don't know why.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 12:58 PM
  #140
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I definitely disagree. The forward crop from last year has turned out pretty good. RNH is already a bonafide star, Landeskog is already looking like he's on the path to be the next Iginla as he was touted to be and will probably win the Calder, Couturier had a great statisitcal season considering he spent most of it on the 4th line and is a future Selke contender, Huby looks great, Zibanejad has looked terrific in international competition, even Scheifele got a long look in training camp.
Last years Top tier prospects were very good. As are this years IMO. Yakupov is the best prospect in either draft. Grigorenko will likely fall to the bottom of the Top 10, but in terms of ability/upside, i think it's entirely plausible he could be the best stat compiler from either draft. Concerns exist about his intensity, work ethic and playoff performance, but whilst i think they are somewhat valid, they are also overblown. Grigorenko suffered a nasty injury in the World Juniors versus Latvia, and never really recovered his skating. He also had might have had mono during the playoffs. I struggle with the sniffles to justify productivity. I also think his style of player doesn't help perceptions. He isn't physical and isn't always playing a 100%. His hockey sense and raw abilities however mean i don't think thats a massive concern going forward. He won't bust, because players who are that smart on the ice do not bust. His hockey sense, puck skills, passing and underated shot make him in my opinion a can't miss high end Forward. He might not be the guy that you think you neccessairly win with, but in 20 years time, i'd be suprised if he wasn't one of the best compilers of this (or 2010) draft.

Galchenyuk missed the year, but himself would compare favourably to any of the Forwards from last year. I'd take him over Strome, and whilst comparisons with Zibanejad and Couturier don't exactly work given stylistic differences, he's a fundamentally better technical player. Teravainen is the risky/sexy pick, but some teams definitely have him in their Top 5, and his late season performances both internationally and domestically were very very good.

Couturier is the single most over-hyped prospect i can't think of for some good time. He's going to be a good NHL player, but the amount of drooling you se,e you'd think he'd have had a better statistical season. He still doesn't have an explosive game, or any outstanding technical abilities. He'll be a good, perhaps great, two way C, but he's not going to be outscoring many of the top end Forwards from this draft IMO.

Zibanejad and Forsberg are the two from either year that are most difficult for me personally to project. Forsberg being the slightly better with the puck, Ziba being more of a physical specimen. I don't think either is likely to be a regular PPG forward in the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Yakupov is still Yakupov, but Grigorenko is falling due to questions about his work ethic and intensity. Gally is a fav of mine but there will still be an aura of uncertainty about him until he proves he can bounce back fully from his injury. Forsberg and Teravainen look like great talents but not enough to push this group over last year's. The defense is definitely deeper than last year's top end group, but overall last year and 2010 had more top end talent in the top half of the 1st round for sure I would say. There are a lot of quality prospects I like in this draft, but they're not guys with star talent. We've even seen guys like Collberg, Aberg, and Gaunce fall recently in some rankings. This is turning out to be a weak draft in terms of top end talent. IMO there will be a lot of good value picks through the first 3-4 rounds.
In terms of Offensive upside, this years Forwards are "better" than last years. 2011 had Forwards who are perhaps more dimensional.

I think the depth this year is quite medicore. The NA Forward crop is poor, and the European Crop seems to lack a little depth. Players like Sissons, Wilson wouldn't be 1st round material in most drafts, but the lack of dynamic upside will likely make teams look for projectable players instead.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I dont care who else is there, if Gaunce is available when we pick then I want him. He's not going to be a prolific scorer like you said, but he will do pretty much everything else at a high level and I think his offensive upside is being seriously overlooked. Could be another Couturier-like situation. Gaunce would give us great depth up the middle going forward. Jankowski seems interesting but more of a late 1st/early 2nd. I was high on Hertl but I've kind of changed my mind because of his slow-footedness. I certainly wouldn't mind him but I'd prefer others at 23. Samuelsson would be solid pick, and I'd take him at around 26-30, but not at 23. I honestly don't see us being high on Wilson. He's the kind of project an established contender takes who can afford such a risk, we really need to keep building. Character, size, and physicality are important to our management team, but so is skill. I don't think Wilson showed enough offensive ability this season despite his terrific playoffs. I know Wilson is consistently ranked around #20, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he fell like a rock.
It would hard to be upset with Gaunce with our pick. Not to say i am enthralled about it, yet one can't really have any qualms. A good projectable player to compliment more dynamic talents.

Hertl does have footspeed problems, a common trait with Czech prospects recently. If there is on skill that can be improved sufficiently, it is skating.

What is the difference between pick 23 and 26? Prospects should be discussed in tiered groups rather than random guessed draft slots, given it's much simpler and productive to understand what tier they reside in, rather than what number they go out. The likely difference between pick 23 and 26 is entirely based on value assigned by each club of the player they want. Most clubs will want different players there, given the likely disparity in their lists. Saying you wouldn't take Samuelsson at 23 is an abritary fallacy, given many players around that slot will be considered of similar ability, and the lists of teams will vary widely. If you like a player enough and have him top, the difference between pick 23 and 26 is meaningless. I don't really want Samuelsson as a side note.

I would agree our blueprint seems clear. "Character", size, skating with some skill seems to be the model being developed. Of course this isn't exactly an unusual model, but it's one we seem keen on. As much as i enjoyed the playoff birth, in terms of the rebuild, it would have been perfect to pick up a high end Forward this year.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Subban is starting to grow on me. He had an excellent interview and did terrific at the combine, performed the best out of any goalie. You're starting to see him be the first ranked goalie on most lists. Picking a goalie in the 1st can be kind of a gamble due to the competitiveness of the position, but I'd be fine with us taking that gamble. I don't see it as a risk of Subban not making it, I see it as hedging our bets that between Markstrom and Subban there's a great chance that one of them would make it and succeed. I think goaltending is a little different that way because if just one of your goalie prospects turns into a good player, that's a success on that front.
He's largely 1st on most lists because Vasilievki had a medicore U-18 and most mock drafts understand his nationality means he isn't getting picked in the 1st. Subban certainly has enticing raw abilities and he interviewed well. Still strategically, drafting Goaltenders in the 1st seems ill-concieved. You wait 4-5 years, hope they develop, and even if they do, in many cases, you still can't insert them into the lineup because they are blocked by established high end Goaltenders. Markstrom is an example of both points. 4 years removed and still not in the NHL. On a Subban timeline, assuming Markstrom becomes an established Goaltender, Subban then has no spot in the NHL. You're investing a valuable asset which has so many obstacles before it can have any significant value appreciated, it simply IMO isn't worth the investment. Good Goaltenders can be find in all positions, signed through FA etc. The investment may work out, but there are better safer investments to be made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I'd say odds are we pick a d-man though. I think either Koekkoek, Bystrom, or Skjei most likely. I could see Finn going higher than most expect, and I've seen Maatta drop a little on a couple recent lists, although I don't know why.
I agree. Would love to move up into the mid teens and take Lindholm.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 05:48 PM
  #141
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBluff View Post
Last years Top tier prospects were very good. As are this years IMO. Yakupov is the best prospect in either draft. Grigorenko will likely fall to the bottom of the Top 10, but in terms of ability/upside, i think it's entirely plausible he could be the best stat compiler from either draft. Concerns exist about his intensity, work ethic and playoff performance, but whilst i think they are somewhat valid, they are also overblown. Grigorenko suffered a nasty injury in the World Juniors versus Latvia, and never really recovered his skating. He also had might have had mono during the playoffs. I struggle with the sniffles to justify productivity. I also think his style of player doesn't help perceptions. He isn't physical and isn't always playing a 100%. His hockey sense and raw abilities however mean i don't think thats a massive concern going forward. He won't bust, because players who are that smart on the ice do not bust. His hockey sense, puck skills, passing and underated shot make him in my opinion a can't miss high end Forward. He might not be the guy that you think you neccessairly win with, but in 20 years time, i'd be suprised if he wasn't one of the best compilers of this (or 2010) draft.
I'd take RNH over Yakupov right now. Nobody really expected RNH to be this advanced this quickly. If Yakupov turns out better than RNH, then he'll be one hell of a player and likely a top 10 player in the league. I don't think the concerns about Grigorenko are overblown. He does seem very shy and reserved and it translates over on the ice as well, he's not physical at all and does go through bouts of inconsistency. I can't forget who it was but someone compared him to viktor Kozlov at the beginning of the season. Kozlov had loads of talent too, but was extremely inconsistent. Before his draft, people were calling him the Russian Mario Lemieux. There may have been other factors that slowed him down over the course of the season, but his play had already displayed some of the concerns about him by scouts by then. It could be a case of unfair piling on, but I think the concerns are at least somewhat justified. I no longer view him as an elite prospect. As for the bolded part of your post, that's what they said about Alex Daigle and Patrik Stefan too. Talent only takes you so far.

Quote:
Couturier is the single most over-hyped prospect i can't think of for some good time. He's going to be a good NHL player, but the amount of drooling you se,e you'd think he'd have had a better statistical season. He still doesn't have an explosive game, or any outstanding technical abilities. He'll be a good, perhaps great, two way C, but he's not going to be outscoring many of the top end Forwards from this draft IMO.
Couturier played on the 4th line most of the season, even in some games in the playoffs, and saw no PP time, yet he scored 27 pts. and 4 pts. in the playoffs. How is that overhyped? That's a terrific statistical season for a 4th liner with no PP time who was an 18-19 year old rookie. He is a great technical player, aside from his skating. He has outstanding hockey sense and is superb defensively. I really don't understand where you're coming from. He doesn't need an explosive game, he's a big guy who doesn't need to play that type of game to produce. I think he'll be better offensively than you think, and even if he doesn't become a high end scorer, he has other attributes to his game that will make him on par as a whole with most of the top end forwards in this draft IMO, if not more valuable.


Quote:
In terms of Offensive upside, this years Forwards are "better" than last years. 2011 had Forwards who are perhaps more dimensional.

I think the depth this year is quite medicore. The NA Forward crop is poor, and the European Crop seems to lack a little depth. Players like Sissons, Wilson wouldn't be 1st round material in most drafts, but the lack of dynamic upside will likely make teams look for projectable players instead.
I'll take 2011's top end forwards anyday in terms of offensive upside right now. Some of them may not be flashy, but they get the job done on the scoresheet and that's all that matters. Once you get into the late 1st and into rounds 2-4, I like the NA forward depth. The depth is just not the kind of quality depth you'd like to see in the first round. There's no doubt this is going to be a horrible 1st round in terms of forwards. But in the rest of the draft, I don't see the depth as bad at all. I think it compares favorably with the last few years, maybe with the 2nd round being a little weaker, but still it's a far cry from 2004 or 1999.

Quote:
What is the difference between pick 23 and 26? Prospects should be discussed in tiered groups rather than random guessed draft slots, given it's much simpler and productive to understand what tier they reside in, rather than what number they go out. The likely difference between pick 23 and 26 is entirely based on value assigned by each club of the player they want. Most clubs will want different players there, given the likely disparity in their lists. Saying you wouldn't take Samuelsson at 23 is an abritary fallacy, given many players around that slot will be considered of similar ability, and the lists of teams will vary widely. If you like a player enough and have him top, the difference between pick 23 and 26 is meaningless. I don't really want Samuelsson as a side note
.

Well then I guess you could say I believe Samuelsson is in a lower tier than other prospects I think we'll be given a choice of. I don't want to say who's going to go where because we really don't know, but I think it's plausible to say that at 26 we'd have little chance at Koekkoek/Bystrom/Maatta, or forwards who may fall like Gaunce. I think in the 26-30 range, you're looking at forwards like Samuelsson, Hertl, Sissons, Laughton, Aberg and d-men like Thrower and Matheson. Of course a couple of these names are bound to switch around, but that's my general feeling. That's how I'd go into the draft if I were part of an NHL team's scouting staff, anyway.

Quote:
He's largely 1st on most lists because Vasilievki had a medicore U-18 and most mock drafts understand his nationality means he isn't getting picked in the 1st. Subban certainly has enticing raw abilities and he interviewed well. Still strategically, drafting Goaltenders in the 1st seems ill-concieved. You wait 4-5 years, hope they develop, and even if they do, in many cases, you still can't insert them into the lineup because they are blocked by established high end Goaltenders. Markstrom is an example of both points. 4 years removed and still not in the NHL. On a Subban timeline, assuming Markstrom becomes an established Goaltender, Subban then has no spot in the NHL. You're investing a valuable asset which has so many obstacles before it can have any significant value appreciated, it simply IMO isn't worth the investment. Good Goaltenders can be find in all positions, signed through FA etc. The investment may work out, but there are better safer investments to be made.
What if Markstrom doesn't become a great goalie though? there's no guarantee that he will. For all we know Subban might become that guy if we pick him. That's why I like the idea of hedging our bets with both Subban and Markstrom. It's not like Subban is my 1st choice or anything, but I do want us to shore up our goaltending in this draft whether it's in the 1st round or with a couple later picks. Subban would just shore it up extremely well, it's an option that I think we should consider but not one that I think we must act upon. If they think Subban is the BPA on the board by a good margin when they're on the clock, then they should pick him.

It's true about Subban being ranked 1st because Vasilevski is Russian, but still I think Subban deserves to be there. He was terrific at the combine, and that's what you want in a goalie, not only one who is technically sound and mentally strong, but is a physical specimen as well. Subban seems to have everything you want to see in a top goalie prospect, which is why he's become very likable.

Of course good goalies can be found in later rounds moreso than skaters, but I'm still of the belief that drafting a top flight goalie prospect in the 1st or 2nd round still gives you a better chance of ending up with a great goalie. I didn't even want us to touch a goalie prospect in the 1st until recently, but Subban has really grown on me.

Goalies can be found in free agency rather easily, that is true, but the caliber of goaltending you are signing is another issue. For example, San Jose is supposed to be a contender but they have struggled to find goaltending good enough to push them over the top for years. Nabokov wasn't that guy for them, neither was Niittymaki, and Niemi is a good enough goalie but it doesn't appear he's that guy for them either(I know he won the Cup but that was only because he was better than Leighton). If you can draft and develop a top flight goalie, that relieves you of the trouble of trying to sign or make a big trade for one down the road. For example, the Blues had to give up Lars Eller for Halak, who was a top flight prospect at the time and looks like a very promising young forward now. We could sign a goalie in free agency but unless you are getting the top goalie on the market or close, then that guy might not be able to bring you to the promised land anyway. I know there are different ways to build a team and you can win the Cup without an elite goalie, but it's much easier to win the Cup with elite goaltending than it is without. History backs that up. I mean just look at how Lundquist is the backbone of the Rangers every year, and how Rinne carries his team into the playoffs every year. If we could have that kind of goaltending in several years' time, with the way our young D is shaping up and if our forward prospects come through, then watch out. We'll be making runs at the Cup.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:09 AM
  #142
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,715
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
Of course good goalies can be found in later rounds moreso than skaters, but I'm still of the belief that drafting a top flight goalie prospect in the 1st or 2nd round still gives you a better chance of ending up with a great goalie. I didn't even want us to touch a goalie prospect in the 1st until recently, but Subban has really grown on me.

Goalies can be found in free agency rather easily, that is true, but the caliber of goaltending you are signing is another issue. For example, San Jose is supposed to be a contender but they have struggled to find goaltending good enough to push them over the top for years. Nabokov wasn't that guy for them, neither was Niittymaki, and Niemi is a good enough goalie but it doesn't appear he's that guy for them either(I know he won the Cup but that was only because he was better than Leighton). If you can draft and develop a top flight goalie, that relieves you of the trouble of trying to sign or make a big trade for one down the road. For example, the Blues had to give up Lars Eller for Halak, who was a top flight prospect at the time and looks like a very promising young forward now. We could sign a goalie in free agency but unless you are getting the top goalie on the market or close, then that guy might not be able to bring you to the promised land anyway. I know there are different ways to build a team and you can win the Cup without an elite goalie, but it's much easier to win the Cup with elite goaltending than it is without. History backs that up. I mean just look at how Lundquist is the backbone of the Rangers every year, and how Rinne carries his team into the playoffs every year. If we could have that kind of goaltending in several years' time, with the way our young D is shaping up and if our forward prospects come through, then watch out. We'll be making runs at the Cup.
Its funny though that you used Rinne and Lundqvist as your examples though which would contradict your other statement above about drafting a goalie in the early rounds. Both Lundqvist and Rinne were drafted after the 6th round. And there are plenty of more examples of finding those guys later too...Ryan Miller, Jonanthan Quick, and (another of your examples) Halak, all were later round picks. Personally I feel like we already used a 1st on Markstrom essentially so we can try and find goalie gems later in the draft. Heck maybe Sam Brittain shocks everyone and becomes a superstar, seriously I wouldnt be surprised by that at all.

Coolburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 11:32 AM
  #143
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Its funny though that you used Rinne and Lundqvist as your examples though which would contradict your other statement above about drafting a goalie in the early rounds. Both Lundqvist and Rinne were drafted after the 6th round. And there are plenty of more examples of finding those guys later too...Ryan Miller, Jonanthan Quick, and (another of your examples) Halak, all were later round picks. Personally I feel like we already used a 1st on Markstrom essentially so we can try and find goalie gems later in the draft. Heck maybe Sam Brittain shocks everyone and becomes a superstar, seriously I wouldnt be surprised by that at all.
Haha touche but I still believe that drafting a goalie high gives you better odds of ending up with a great goalie.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 12:18 PM
  #144
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I'd take RNH over Yakupov right now. Nobody really expected RNH to be this advanced this quickly. If Yakupov turns out better than RNH, then he'll be one hell of a player and likely a top 10 player in the league. I don't think the concerns about Grigorenko are overblown. He does seem very shy and reserved and it translates over on the ice as well, he's not physical at all and does go through bouts of inconsistency. I can't forget who it was but someone compared him to viktor Kozlov at the beginning of the season. Kozlov had loads of talent too, but was extremely inconsistent. Before his draft, people were calling him the Russian Mario Lemieux. There may have been other factors that slowed him down over the course of the season, but his play had already displayed some of the concerns about him by scouts by then. It could be a case of unfair piling on, but I think the concerns are at least somewhat justified. I no longer view him as an elite prospect. As for the bolded part of your post, that's what they said about Alex Daigle and Patrik Stefan too. Talent only takes you so far.
Yakupov will be a better NHL goalscorer, although points it will likely be close. Yakupov is more dynamic, and i think whilst both will ne high end NHL forwards, my personal preferance is for Yakupov.

Daigle is a unique case. Certainly not a valid example or comparison to Grigorenko. Stefan never had the abilities Grigorenko has, and was deemed a safe reliable pick who would be a good NHL'er for many years. Stefan was actually an ok NHL'er, but certainly struggled. Either way, Stefan and Grigorenko have nothing in common.

Grigorenko will likely never be the percieved heart and soul of a team. His offensive abilities and on ice vision mean he's IMO a near can't miss NHL prospect. He'll be an excellent compiler IMO. The issues many people are discussing existed years ago. People seem to expect something from Grigorenko that he has never shown. Unless people get that, they are unfortunately in my opinion not judging Grigorenko correctly. His pre World Junior work was exceptional. His ankle injury plagued him the rest of the year, and mono + fatigue (Russian development is far less intense than NA development) also affected him. His abilities and upside haven't disappeared, like some seemingly believe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Couturier played on the 4th line most of the season, even in some games in the playoffs, and saw no PP time, yet he scored 27 pts. and 4 pts. in the playoffs. How is that overhyped? That's a terrific statistical season for a 4th liner with no PP time who was an 18-19 year old rookie. He is a great technical player, aside from his skating. He has outstanding hockey sense and is superb defensively. I really don't understand where you're coming from. He doesn't need an explosive game, he's a big guy who doesn't need to play that type of game to produce. I think he'll be better offensively than you think, and even if he doesn't become a high end scorer, he has other attributes to his game that will make him on par as a whole with most of the top end forwards in this draft IMO, if not more valuable.
4th line argument ... a flawed argument. It's overhyped because people keep declaring him as the steal of the draft, yet the 3 players taken above him who made the NHL, had better seasons, and the remainder aren't in the NHL yet. The race doesn't end at 18. Couturier will be an excellent NHL player for many years, but i realistically woudn't rank him higher than 6th or 7th in a 2011 re-draft, and certainly believe the big Forwards from this years crop have better projectable offensive abilities.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I'll take 2011's top end forwards anyday in terms of offensive upside right now. Some of them may not be flashy, but they get the job done on the scoresheet and that's all that matters. Once you get into the late 1st and into rounds 2-4, I like the NA forward depth. The depth is just not the kind of quality depth you'd like to see in the first round. There's no doubt this is going to be a horrible 1st round in terms of forwards. But in the rest of the draft, I don't see the depth as bad at all. I think it compares favorably with the last few years, maybe with the 2nd round being a little weaker, but still it's a far cry from 2004 or 1999.
I can't see any reasoning which will convince me Couturier/Zibanejad have better technical skills than the top 5 Forwards from this year. Galchenyuk would be percieved as a better prospect than Strome if he had not missed most of the year.

I didn't say it was like 2004/1999. I simply said the depth is medicore, which it seems to be.

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Well then I guess you could say I believe Samuelsson is in a lower tier than other prospects I think we'll be given a choice of. I don't want to say who's going to go where because we really don't know, but I think it's plausible to say that at 26 we'd have little chance at Koekkoek/Bystrom/Maatta, or forwards who may fall like Gaunce. I think in the 26-30 range, you're looking at forwards like Samuelsson, Hertl, Sissons, Laughton, Aberg and d-men like Thrower and Matheson. Of course a couple of these names are bound to switch around, but that's my general feeling. That's how I'd go into the draft if I were part of an NHL team's scouting staff, anyway.
Maatta won't fall that far i think, otherwise yes, predicting an NHL team's 20-30 list is almost impossible, and nothing should suprise us. The only thing we can use is past trends and stylistical tendancies. I've heard Matheson has fallen somewhat, so i'd be suprised if he went in the 1st.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
What if Markstrom doesn't become a great goalie though? there's no guarantee that he will. For all we know Subban might become that guy if we pick him. That's why I like the idea of hedging our bets with both Subban and Markstrom. It's not like Subban is my 1st choice or anything, but I do want us to shore up our goaltending in this draft whether it's in the 1st round or with a couple later picks. Subban would just shore it up extremely well, it's an option that I think we should consider but not one that I think we must act upon. If they think Subban is the BPA on the board by a good margin when they're on the clock, then they should pick him.
Markstrom shouldn't be used as an argument to use a 1st round pick on a Goalie. I've given my reasoning for not taking a Goalie in the 1st, and i think it is strategically better than using 1sts to take Goaltenders. The time line, the development issues, the competition mean drafting a Goalie in the 1st is a huge risk.

Goaltending prospect issues can be addressed via many ways. Obviously if Florida feels there are very few enticing alternatives in the 1st round, Subban becomes a viable option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
It's true about Subban being ranked 1st because Vasilevski is Russian, but still I think Subban deserves to be there. He was terrific at the combine, and that's what you want in a goalie, not only one who is technically sound and mentally strong, but is a physical specimen as well. Subban seems to have everything you want to see in a top goalie prospect, which is why he's become very likable.
The combine results do not particularly interest me. Interviews are more important than the test results. I'd also say that European prospects will nearly always be physically further behind, given it's culturally physical development at 17/18 takes less emphasis. Subban does have a very nice skill-set of course, but given the option, i'd rather take Dansk or Vasilevski in the 2nd than Subban in the 1st.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Of course good goalies can be found in later rounds moreso than skaters, but I'm still of the belief that drafting a top flight goalie prospect in the 1st or 2nd round still gives you a better chance of ending up with a great goalie. I didn't even want us to touch a goalie prospect in the 1st until recently, but Subban has really grown on me.
I don't have the time or patience to do a study, but i'd be somewhat confident that the results are marginal. European Goalies of high quality can be found in the later rounds without doubt. The past few 1st round Goaltenders have been disappointing. High end Forwards are usually drafted very high. High end Defenseman can be found in the 1st or 2nd semi- regularly. Good Goaltenders can be drafted anywhere, and often through FA after being undrafted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Goalies can be found in free agency rather easily, that is true, but the caliber of goaltending you are signing is another issue. For example, San Jose is supposed to be a contender but they have struggled to find goaltending good enough to push them over the top for years. Nabokov wasn't that guy for them, neither was Niittymaki, and Niemi is a good enough goalie but it doesn't appear he's that guy for them either(I know he won the Cup but that was only because he was better than Leighton). If you can draft and develop a top flight goalie, that relieves you of the trouble of trying to sign or make a big trade for one down the road. For example, the Blues had to give up Lars Eller for Halak, who was a top flight prospect at the time and looks like a very promising young forward now. We could sign a goalie in free agency but unless you are getting the top goalie on the market or close, then that guy might not be able to bring you to the promised land anyway. I know there are different ways to build a team and you can win the Cup without an elite goalie, but it's much easier to win the Cup with elite goaltending than it is without. History backs that up. I mean just look at how Lundquist is the backbone of the Rangers every year, and how Rinne carries his team into the playoffs every year. If we could have that kind of goaltending in several years' time, with the way our young D is shaping up and if our forward prospects come through, then watch out. We'll be making runs at the Cup.
Nabakov was generally solid for the Sharks, and certainly wasn't really the reason for their failures. Niitymaki has never been a #1, and Niemi isn't really an above average Goaltending, despite his success in Chicago.

If it were significant easier to win with elite goaltenders, we would see repeat winners more regularly, given surely there are only a small group of elite goaltenders? There is a relatively large group of very good Goaltenders in the league, with a few nearly always at the top, and some occassionally reaching the top (Ward, Hiller etc). For all that Rinne and Lundqvist are elite, they have yet to make the Finals. Thomas couldn't repeat. You need good Goaltending, but i'd argue you don't absolutely need elite goaltending (or rather, an elite goaltender). Looking at the majority of elite Goaltenders today, there is no trend that says more come from the 1st round.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:23 PM
  #145
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBluff View Post
Yakupov will be a better NHL goalscorer, although points it will likely be close. Yakupov is more dynamic, and i think whilst both will ne high end NHL forwards, my personal preferance is for Yakupov.
Yakupov will probably be a better goalscorer, but RNH is a much better playmaker. Yakupov is slightly more dynamic, but RNH is very dynamic himself. He can dart into holes and burn defenders almost as good as anybody already. He's an amazing stickhandler. I want to see what Yakupov can do in the NHL first before saying he'll be better than RNH. That's a pretty bold statement. Yakupov isn't a generational talent although sometimes he's hyped up to be or close to it.

Quote:
Daigle is a unique case. Certainly not a valid example or comparison to Grigorenko. Stefan never had the abilities Grigorenko has, and was deemed a safe reliable pick who would be a good NHL'er for many years. Stefan was actually an ok NHL'er, but certainly struggled. Either way, Stefan and Grigorenko have nothing in common.

Grigorenko will likely never be the percieved heart and soul of a team. His offensive abilities and on ice vision mean he's IMO a near can't miss NHL prospect. He'll be an excellent compiler IMO. The issues many people are discussing existed years ago. People seem to expect something from Grigorenko that he has never shown. Unless people get that, they are unfortunately in my opinion not judging Grigorenko correctly. His pre World Junior work was exceptional. His ankle injury plagued him the rest of the year, and mono + fatigue (Russian development is far less intense than NA development) also affected him. His abilities and upside haven't disappeared, like some seemingly believe.
Daigle was a unique case in that it came out later that he didn't have any passion for the game and his father made him play, but for all we know it could be a similar case with Grigs in that his passion for the game might not be as strong as some other prospects, no matter what he says. That's something that the normal fan will probably never be able to gauge properly, but some NHL teams might have gotten a good feel for it at the combine interviews.

NHL teams using a top 5-10 pick aren't content to see players without much intensity who don't seem to be giving 100%. It seems normal that they would want to see an improvement in that aspect from Grigs in his draft year even though they might have known that area was lacking beforehand. Drive is an important component of a star hockey player and you are seemingly suggesting that he could become a star player even without working hard and showing more heart and I disagree. Even if he may become a reliable top 6 producer, I doubt he'll ever become a star without buying into those things the scouts want to see from him. Most NHL teams aren't content to just draft an OK top 6 forward in the top 5, they want to go for the big one and draft someone who they think has what it takes to become a star, and maybe that's the thinking that's going on right now.

Quote:
4th line argument ... a flawed argument. It's overhyped because people keep declaring him as the steal of the draft, yet the 3 players taken above him who made the NHL, had better seasons, and the remainder aren't in the NHL yet. The race doesn't end at 18. Couturier will be an excellent NHL player for many years, but i realistically woudn't rank him higher than 6th or 7th in a 2011 re-draft, and certainly believe the big Forwards from this years crop have better projectable offensive abilities.
Seriously? You seem like a very knowledgable fan, but I just don't know where you're coming from on this. If he was paired with more skilled forwards and got PP time, he'd score more points. That's just common sense. In a re-draft he should go top 5 without a doubt IMO. The top end forwards in this draft are just flashier, that's it. You really can't say for example that Teravainen has better projectable offensive abilities. He's boom or bust. Meanwhile Couturier most likely will be milling along every season scoring at least 50-60 pts. while being one of the best two-way players in the game.


Quote:
I can't see any reasoning which will convince me Couturier/Zibanejad have better technical skills than the top 5 Forwards from this year. Galchenyuk would be percieved as a better prospect than Strome if he had not missed most of the year.

I didn't say it was like 2004/1999. I simply said the depth is medicore, which it seems to be.
.
Technically Couturier and Zibanejad are excellent. Gally is a better prospect than Strome, I'm not even going to argue with you on that. But I'd wager from where most people sit they'd say RNH, Lando, Couturier, and Huby looks much better than Yakupov, Gally, Grigs, and Forsberg/Teravainen right now.

You see the depth as mediocre, I'd call it slightly below average. Chalk it up to difference in perception. It's not as good as 2009-2011.


Quote:
Maatta won't fall that far i think, otherwise yes, predicting an NHL team's 20-30 list is almost impossible, and nothing should suprise us. The only thing we can use is past trends and stylistical tendancies. I've heard Matheson has fallen somewhat, so i'd be suprised if he went in the 1st.
I'm not going to surmise that I know who will be selected 20-30 or what the order will be, but as for predicting a general order, yes I think that's realistic. Of course there will be surprises, as I said. Some people outthink themselves when analyzing the draft. Matheson's placing varies wildly on different lists. But wait...didn't you say nothing should surprise us?

Quote:
Markstrom shouldn't be used as an argument to use a 1st round pick on a Goalie. I've given my reasoning for not taking a Goalie in the 1st, and i think it is strategically better than using 1sts to take Goaltenders. The time line, the development issues, the competition mean drafting a Goalie in the 1st is a huge risk.

Goaltending prospect issues can be addressed via many ways. Obviously if Florida feels there are very few enticing alternatives in the 1st round, Subban becomes a viable option.
I do think goaltending depth should come into play here. Obviously if we had Markstrom, Bishop, and Lehner in our system then we wouldn't even think about Subban. Having Markstrom is very good, but behind him we have Brittain who is solid yet far from a top prospect, and Foster who likely won't even be re-signed. Gayduchenko likely isn't ever coming to N.A. We have little depth. I understand perfectly your reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's right. I don't think there is a right way to draft goalies. Teams still draft them high every year, even in the 1st most years, so obviously there's a reason for it.

Quote:
The combine results do not particularly interest me. Interviews are more important than the test results. I'd also say that European prospects will nearly always be physically further behind, given it's culturally physical development at 17/18 takes less emphasis. Subban does have a very nice skill-set of course, but given the option, i'd rather take Dansk or Vasilevski in the 2nd than Subban in the 1st.
Combine testing results should interest anyone. Having a goalie prospect who is already regarded as having excellent reflexes and reaction time score so high in tests which pertain specifically to goaltenders is very encouraging and what teams dream of seeing at the combine. I'd be fine with taking a goalie in the 2nd, but at #53 we'd most likely be looking at guys like Matt Murray or Brandon Whitney.


Quote:
I don't have the time or patience to do a study, but i'd be somewhat confident that the results are marginal. European Goalies of high quality can be found in the later rounds without doubt. The past few 1st round Goaltenders have been disappointing. High end Forwards are usually drafted very high. High end Defenseman can be found in the 1st or 2nd semi- regularly. Good Goaltenders can be drafted anywhere, and often through FA after being undrafted.
I'd disagree. Campbell seems to have rebounded strongly after a mediocre 10-11 season. High end skaters can be drafted anywhere as well. The ratio probably isn't the same as goaltenders but I think that has a lot to do with the competition of the goalie position, not because it's a crapshoot. It's sound logic that top goalie prospects who shine at an early age and stand out in junior have a leg up in getting into the NHL over their peers. Even if the margin is small, it's still worth it IMO.

Quote:
Nabakov was generally solid for the Sharks, and certainly wasn't really the reason for their failures. Niitymaki has never been a #1, and Niemi isn't really an above average Goaltending, despite his success in Chicago.
I didn't say Nabby was the reason for their failures, but imagine if Miller or Lundqvist was in there instead? SJ let him walk a couple summers ago because they felt they needed an upgrade. Niitty and Niemi reinforce my point, they went looking for goaltending in free agency and failed to reel in a good enough goalie to take them where they wanted to go.

Quote:
If it were significant easier to win with elite goaltenders, we would see repeat winners more regularly, given surely there are only a small group of elite goaltenders? There is a relatively large group of very good Goaltenders in the league, with a few nearly always at the top, and some occassionally reaching the top (Ward, Hiller etc). For all that Rinne and Lundqvist are elite, they have yet to make the Finals. Thomas couldn't repeat. You need good Goaltending, but i'd argue you don't absolutely need elite goaltending (or rather, an elite goaltender). Looking at the majority of elite Goaltenders today, there is no trend that says more come from the 1st round.
That has little to do with the goaltenders and mostly to do with the parity in today's game. Besides, I didn't say necessarily elite goalie, but elite goaltending. Ward was elite in the 2006 run. Vernon was brilliant in the 97 run for the Wings but before and after that playoffs wasn't really regarded as elite, and hadn't been for years since his Calgary days. If Rinne or Lundqvist had played on the Kings, they probably would have reached the Final. I agree that you don't need elite goaltending, I said that, but it sure helps. Most Cups have been won by a team that had elite goaltending. Again, as I said earlier, teams still draft goalies high in the draft, there must be a reason for it.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:25 AM
  #146
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Yakupov will probably be a better goalscorer, but RNH is a much better playmaker. Yakupov is slightly more dynamic, but RNH is very dynamic himself. He can dart into holes and burn defenders almost as good as anybody already. He's an amazing stickhandler. I want to see what Yakupov can do in the NHL first before saying he'll be better than RNH. That's a pretty bold statement. Yakupov isn't a generational talent although sometimes he's hyped up to be or close to it.
Yakupov is a very underated playmaker. His game isn't solely based around scoring. Of course Yakupov hasn't had the opportunity to play in the NHL yet, but at Yakupov's respective stage, i would take him over RN right now.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Daigle was a unique case in that it came out later that he didn't have any passion for the game and his father made him play, but for all we know it could be a similar case with Grigs in that his passion for the game might not be as strong as some other prospects, no matter what he says. That's something that the normal fan will probably never be able to gauge properly, but some NHL teams might have gotten a good feel for it at the combine interviews.
Given we know nothing about Grigorenko's personality or motivation, it's entirely pointless conjecture. You're trying to compare him to an historically unique case without any evidence. Given Grigorenko came to NA at 17, it suggests that he atleast takes his hockey career very seriously. Apparently he interviewed well at the Combine for what it is worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
NHL teams using a top 5-10 pick aren't content to see players without much intensity who don't seem to be giving 100%. It seems normal that they would want to see an improvement in that aspect from Grigs in his draft year even though they might have known that area was lacking beforehand. Drive is an important component of a star hockey player and you are seemingly suggesting that he could become a star player even without working hard and showing more heart and I disagree. Even if he may become a reliable top 6 producer, I doubt he'll ever become a star without buying into those things the scouts want to see from him. Most NHL teams aren't content to just draft an OK top 6 forward in the top 5, they want to go for the big one and draft someone who they think has what it takes to become a star, and maybe that's the thinking that's going on right now.
Drive isn't neccessairly defined as being an intense player. Grigorenko is a very smart player, but certainly not ain intense player. An intelligent player who thinks rather than skates like a headless chicken isn't a bad thing. I completely agree that Grigorenko does have some history of the concerns we see today, but that are IMO overblown.

Why don't you think he'll be a star? I understand the concerns, but this new thinking that Grigorenko doesn't have very high end abilities is absolute nonsense. It's like people are getting brainwaved and can't think for themselves. His passing, his shot, his vision, his puck control are all elite. No player in this draft offers the type of package he does. I actually do think he'll fall in the draft to the bottom of the Top 10, but i think many teams will come to regret passing on him.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Seriously? You seem like a very knowledgable fan, but I just don't know where you're coming from on this. If he was paired with more skilled forwards and got PP time, he'd score more points. That's just common sense. In a re-draft he should go top 5 without a doubt IMO. The top end forwards in this draft are just flashier, that's it. You really can't say for example that Teravainen has better projectable offensive abilities. He's boom or bust. Meanwhile Couturier most likely will be milling along every season scoring at least 50-60 pts. while being one of the best two-way players in the game.
Of course Philadelphia are a deep team, but if a player is going to get more ice-time, he needs to earn it. The ice-time wasn't there for a reason at this stage in his career. The ice time projectable is often over-used to imply a player will score alot more than he does now. With Couturier being 18, of course he will see statistical improvement, but his 1st year in the NHL is one of the most overhyped seasons relative to what it was you will ever seen.

Why should he go top 5 in a re-draft? Nugent-Hopkins, Landeskog and Larsson had better years, and remain better long-term prospects. Huberdeau is a dynamic talent, and certainly in the long-term will be a bigger star IMO than Couturier. Strome/Zibanejad remain very good prospects, and shouldn't be punished simply because they wern't NHL ready yet. I'd actually take players like Bartschi/Hamilton long-term over Couturier too. We'll see how the draft looks 4 years from now but declarations of Couturier being this steal are far too premature.



.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Technically Couturier and Zibanejad are excellent. Gally is a better prospect than Strome, I'm not even going to argue with you on that. But I'd wager from where most people sit they'd say RNH, Lando, Couturier, and Huby looks much better than Yakupov, Gally, Grigs, and Forsberg/Teravainen right now.

You see the depth as mediocre, I'd call it slightly below average. Chalk it up to difference in perception. It's not as good as 2009-2011.
Of course they are excellent relative to nearly anybody. Relative to this years high end crop, i disagree. Zibanejad is a physical specimen who skates very well and will be a solid NHL player who can score, but he isn't a dynamic puck possession player. Forsberg is definitely considered a better technical player with higher offensive abilities.

Teravainen's combination of hockey sense, creativity and puck skills is really something that Couturier/Ziba do not have. Of course they are better in other dimensions, and could well become better long-term players, but niether possess what many fans would define as "pure skills" (A somewhat nonsensical term i guess).

Of course 2011 looks better now. They have an extra year of development and in some cases, have had good seasons in the NHL. It doesn't really change my opinion that i believe this years high end crop have better technical abilities/upside, but lack the other dimensions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I'm not going to surmise that I know who will be selected 20-30 or what the order will be, but as for predicting a general order, yes I think that's realistic. Of course there will be surprises, as I said. Some people outthink themselves when analyzing the draft. Matheson's placing varies wildly on different lists. But wait...didn't you say nothing should surprise us?
You can create tiers, but beyond speculating who we take, who we have ranked where, is very very difficult. The people who outhinking themselves are the people who repeatedly attempt to guess who takes who. It's possible to infer who the top teams take, but in the mid to late 1st, it becomes much harder. Rather than being one of these fans who posts in prospect threads saying "We won't pass on such and such if he is there", i'd rather simply give a small insight into some of the available players, and let it lie there. I have absolutely no clue who we take.

Matheson of course could go in the 1st if a team likes him enough. I've heard as generality, he has fallen, but you are right, this doesn't eliminate the plausibility of us selecting him.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I do think goaltending depth should come into play here. Obviously if we had Markstrom, Bishop, and Lehner in our system then we wouldn't even think about Subban. Having Markstrom is very good, but behind him we have Brittain who is solid yet far from a top prospect, and Foster who likely won't even be re-signed. Gayduchenko likely isn't ever coming to N.A. We have little depth. I understand perfectly your reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's right. I don't think there is a right way to draft goalies. Teams still draft them high every year, even in the 1st most years, so obviously there's a reason for it.
Goaltending depth is fickle. Two years ago, people believed we had great Goaltending prospect depth. Now the opposite is the perception. Given goaltenders take 4-5 years at a minimum, taken prospects entirely based on a percieved weakness now seems somewhat illogical to me. Taking Goaltending prospects on ability is fine, but i don't think you should ever draft a Goaltending based on worry of anothers failure, or attempting to directly fill a need.

A small study looking at the Goaltenders taken in the 1st round since 2004 ( I picked 2004 randomly, although it does "coincidently" seem like an excellent year to start ) :

2004 : This was a weak year, but this study shouldn't really take into account the availability of others, it is simply showing success rate of the goaltenders taken.

Montoya ; Still on NHL fringes, but not promising
Dubnyk ; Played just over 100 NHL games (small sample size), considered to be one of the worst starters in the league. Could still carve out an ok career.
Schwarz ; Bust.
Schneider ; Very good Goaltending, but given situation, 8 years removed from being drafted, still awaits the opportunity to be a #1. Highlights problems of drafting Goaltenders beyond simple development issues.

2005 :

Price ; Good pick.
Rask ; Very good Goaltending, but similar situation to Schneider. The development period is very very long

2006 :

Bernier ; Awaits NHL opportunity, difficult to guage his future
Helenius ; Difficult to envisage him returning from Europe. Bust
Varlamov ; Established himself as a #1 this year. Took 6 years.
Irving ; Still awaits opportunity in Calgary. Will have some type of NHL career, but 6 years on we still don't know.

2007 :

None talen

2008 :

Pickard ; Development has been awful
McCollum ; Development has also been poor.

2009 :

None taken

We'll stop there, although the 2010 Goalie 1st round list hasn't developed as expected since.

The results are clearly mixed. Fair share of busts with a fair share of percieved quality Goaltenders. The only player listed to have been a starter for more than one year is Price, the highest Goalie taken. We have 2/3 young Goalies who are excellent prospects, but 6-8 years later, still await their chance. We then have a couple of older fringe goaltenders. This study is in no way deep enough to give any definitive answer given it has large limitations (Well no study would give a definitive answer), but it does highlight that drafting a Goaltender in the 1st round has many issues.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Combine testing results should interest anyone. Having a goalie prospect who is already regarded as having excellent reflexes and reaction time score so high in tests which pertain specifically to goaltenders is very encouraging and what teams dream of seeing at the combine. I'd be fine with taking a goalie in the 2nd, but at #53 we'd most likely be looking at guys like Matt Murray or Brandon Whitney.
The tests are not that important to me. It doesn't alter their play on ice, which is by far the most important information scouts need. It's useful for understanding where the different athletes excel in, but it has it's limitations. No results at the combine have changed my mind on any prospect.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I'd disagree. Campbell seems to have rebounded strongly after a mediocre 10-11 season. High end skaters can be drafted anywhere as well. The ratio probably isn't the same as goaltenders but I think that has a lot to do with the competition of the goalie position, not because it's a crapshoot. It's sound logic that top goalie prospects who shine at an early age and stand out in junior have a leg up in getting into the NHL over their peers. Even if the margin is small, it's still worth it IMO.
Campbell has had a medicore OHL career. He's still projectable, but i think it's naive to say he's had anything other than a slightly disappointing two years post-draft. High end Forwards tend to be available through higher picks only, as the statistics do show.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I didn't say Nabby was the reason for their failures, but imagine if Miller or Lundqvist was in there instead? SJ let him walk a couple summers ago because they felt they needed an upgrade. Niitty and Niemi reinforce my point, they went looking for goaltending in free agency and failed to reel in a good enough goalie to take them where they wanted to go.
It's irrelevant conjecture. Lundqvist and Miller haven't faired any better in the playoffs to date either, and Lundqvist had a very strong team this year. You need good Goaltending in the playoffs of course, but there are many other factors involved. SJ let Nabakov walk because he was on the decline. Nitty and Niemi aren't the reason SJ have failed in the playoffs recently. Given Niemi was an FA with Chicago, it's a somewhat contradicting point you are making. SJ don't have strong Goaltending, but there are greater issues than Goaltending with that core.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
That has little to do with the goaltenders and mostly to do with the parity in today's game. Besides, I didn't say necessarily elite goalie, but elite goaltending. Ward was elite in the 2006 run. Vernon was brilliant in the 97 run for the Wings but before and after that playoffs wasn't really regarded as elite, and hadn't been for years since his Calgary days. If Rinne or Lundqvist had played on the Kings, they probably would have reached the Final. I agree that you don't need elite goaltending, I said that, but it sure helps. Most Cups have been won by a team that had elite goaltending. Again, as I said earlier, teams still draft goalies high in the draft, there must be a reason for it.
Unsure of what point you are trying to assert here, so i will leave it alone. We've moved onto whether you need Elite Goaltending, but much of the elite goaltender you have cited does not come from the 1st round. Of course good Goaltenders can be drafted in the 1st round, but as your actial post indicates, many of the best Goaltenders today aren't from the 1st round, and as the limited study given early shows, 1st round Goalie picks do not really have a quicker timelime than other Goalie picks.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 09:51 AM
  #147
Haj
Registered User
 
Haj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,572
vCash: 50
If Grigerenko falls, we should trade up to take him.


If we stay where we are, take BPA. It makes no sense to draft based on need, which is impossible to forecast 3-4 years from now. Basically, take the players that is most likely to become a difference maker even if it is Subban or Vasilejvs.

Haj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 07:58 AM
  #148
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBluff View Post
Yakupov is a very underated playmaker. His game isn't solely based around scoring. Of course Yakupov hasn't had the opportunity to play in the NHL yet, but at Yakupov's respective stage, i would take him over RN right now.
I never implied that Yakupov wasn't a good playmaker, but RNH is an amazing playmaker. It's true that right now, yakupov is better than RNH was last season. But we've seen what RNH can do in the NHL now. So there's no point in basing a comparison off of last season. Simply put, if Yakupov turns out better, then he'll be one of the top handful of forwards in the league. If you believe that, fine, I'm not ready to go there yet. I think conservatively saying RNH projects to be better in the long run is perfectly reasonable right now. Saying Yakupov will be better is the bold statement.


Quote:
Given we know nothing about Grigorenko's personality or motivation, it's entirely pointless conjecture. You're trying to compare him to an historically unique case without any evidence. Given Grigorenko came to NA at 17, it suggests that he atleast takes his hockey career very seriously. Apparently he interviewed well at the Combine for what it is worth.
I wasn't making any definitive assertions, merely speculating what could be the cause of his fall in the rankings. The scouts are dropping him down lists for a reason. And we all know it's because of his perceived character flaws. Maybe his case is similar to Daigle's and we don't know it yet. Maybe it isn't. But you can't definitively rule it out.

Quote:
Drive isn't neccessairly defined as being an intense player. Grigorenko is a very smart player, but certainly not ain intense player. An intelligent player who thinks rather than skates like a headless chicken isn't a bad thing. I completely agree that Grigorenko does have some history of the concerns we see today, but that are IMO overblown.
Having the necessary drive doesn't mean you have to play like Callahan, but it does mean you should display consistency more often than Grigs has shown in N.A. and for a 6'3" guy he should throw his body around a little more. I'm not saying having a little ice water in the veins is a bad thing, but a mummified corpse in frozen tundra is another. I don't blame the scouts one bit for their perception of him. If they just pretended like everything was hunky-dory and glossed over these concerns, they wouldn't be doing their job. Lottery picks can make or break a rebuild, this is pretty important stuff to consider.

Quote:
Why don't you think he'll be a star? I understand the concerns, but this new thinking that Grigorenko doesn't have very high end abilities is absolute nonsense. It's like people are getting brainwaved and can't think for themselves. His passing, his shot, his vision, his puck control are all elite. No player in this draft offers the type of package he does. I actually do think he'll fall in the draft to the bottom of the Top 10, but i think many teams will come to regret passing on him.
I didn't say that. I said if he doesn't up his game in the departments that are lacking right now, I don't think he'll become a star. No one can reach the heights of the game on talent alone. Think of every big star that has ever played, they all had an unrelenting passion for the game and displayed intensity and strong work ethic. I don't care how much talent you have, if you don't want it bad enough you won't dominate on the ice. Frolik had a ton of talent too, how's he doing right now? I could name a ton of examples, some I've named already. How would Grigs be any different?

Quote:
Of course Philadelphia are a deep team, but if a player is going to get more ice-time, he needs to earn it. The ice-time wasn't there for a reason at this stage in his career. The ice time projectable is often over-used to imply a player will score alot more than he does now. With Couturier being 18, of course he will see statistical improvement, but his 1st year in the NHL is one of the most overhyped seasons relative to what it was you will ever seen.
That's nonsense. Have you seen Philly's lineup lately? Couturier would be a top 6 center on our team without a doubt. He was an 18 year old rookie who scored 27 pts. playing with 4th liners. how wouldn't he have cracked at least 40 pts. if playing with top 6 wingers? Your whole argument on this point is extremely weak. Pair Weiss with Rinaldo, Shelley, etc. and idk if he'd even score 27 pts. Certainly he wouldn't fare much better if so.

Quote:
Why should he go top 5 in a re-draft? Nugent-Hopkins, Landeskog and Larsson had better years, and remain better long-term prospects. Huberdeau is a dynamic talent, and certainly in the long-term will be a bigger star IMO than Couturier. Strome/Zibanejad remain very good prospects, and shouldn't be punished simply because they wern't NHL ready yet. I'd actually take players like Bartschi/Hamilton long-term over Couturier too. We'll see how the draft looks 4 years from now but declarations of Couturier being this steal are far too premature.
Larsson? Please. He was healthy scratched in some games and in the playoffs he was scratched for most of it in favor of Peter "studhorse" Harrold. He clearly did not transition to the NHL as fast as a lot of people thought he was going to. There is no certainty wrt Huberdeau vs. Couturier. You seem to have a big bias against Couturier. Bartschi over Couturier? Erm, no. Strome and Zibanejad have done nothing yet to show that they should be considered better than Couturier. They are both solid prospects, and I do like Zibby a lot, but yeah, that's how it works. When you have a great rookie NHL season then usually you should look more favorable long term than anyone still in junior no matter pretty much what they do there.


Quote:
Of course they are excellent relative to nearly anybody. Relative to this years high end crop, i disagree. Zibanejad is a physical specimen who skates very well and will be a solid NHL player who can score, but he isn't a dynamic puck possession player. Forsberg is definitely considered a better technical player with higher offensive abilities.

Teravainen's combination of hockey sense, creativity and puck skills is really something that Couturier/Ziba do not have. Of course they are better in other dimensions, and could well become better long-term players, but niether possess what many fans would define as "pure skills" (A somewhat nonsensical term i guess).
There's more to hockey than just goals and assists. 'Pure skill' is just one facet of the game. I can see now why you disfavor Couturier so much. You can't say you think player A projects to be better long term than player B because player A has more pure skill, and ignore everything else. Most players only have the puck for a couple minutes or less in total of the game. What you do for the rest of it is very important too. Zibby and Couturier should certainly be perceived to be just as good technically as Forsberg and Teravainen right now, and even if the scales tip slightly one way or the other, it's a very minute difference.

Quote:
Of course 2011 looks better now. They have an extra year of development and in some cases, have had good seasons in the NHL. It doesn't really change my opinion that i believe this years high end crop have better technical abilities/upside, but lack the other dimensions.
Yeah, that's kind of the point though. We've got a taste of the 2011 class now. So there's no use in pretending we don't and going back to last year. The 2012 crop of top end forwards has shown me nothing to suggest that they are all superstar talent or something and are good enough to be considered better than the likely Calder winner, the likely Calder runner-up, and a number of other very promising players. If the 2012 class had 5 forwards like Yakupov, then I'd be singing a different tune, but it doesn't. Forsberg, Teravainen, and Grigs hardly blow me away.

Quote:
You can create tiers, but beyond speculating who we take, who we have ranked where, is very very difficult. The people who outhinking themselves are the people who repeatedly attempt to guess who takes who. It's possible to infer who the top teams take, but in the mid to late 1st, it becomes much harder. Rather than being one of these fans who posts in prospect threads saying "We won't pass on such and such if he is there", i'd rather simply give a small insight into some of the available players, and let it lie there. I have absolutely no clue who we take.
Ugh. I never preseumed to guess who takes who. I listed a general order, which is basically the same as creating tiers. This is a very weak straw man argument you started with me in the first place.

Quote:
Goaltending depth is fickle. Two years ago, people believed we had great Goaltending prospect depth. Now the opposite is the perception. Given goaltenders take 4-5 years at a minimum, taken prospects entirely based on a percieved weakness now seems somewhat illogical to me. Taking Goaltending prospects on ability is fine, but i don't think you should ever draft a Goaltending based on worry of anothers failure, or attempting to directly fill a need.
Yeah, because we had 3 more prospects than we have now. But as years pass by, you evaluate and see who is progressing worthy enough of keeping and who you should let go. If you are fine with having 3, maybe 2 goaltending prospects heading into next season, that's fine, but I think you might be the only Panthers fan.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 09:14 AM
  #149
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBluff View Post
A small study looking at the Goaltenders taken in the 1st round since 2004 ( I picked 2004 randomly, although it does "coincidently" seem like an excellent year to start ) :

2004 : This was a weak year, but this study shouldn't really take into account the availability of others, it is simply showing success rate of the goaltenders taken.

Montoya ; Still on NHL fringes, but not promising
Dubnyk ; Played just over 100 NHL games (small sample size), considered to be one of the worst starters in the league. Could still carve out an ok career.
Schwarz ; Bust.
Schneider ; Very good Goaltending, but given situation, 8 years removed from being drafted, still awaits the opportunity to be a #1. Highlights problems of drafting Goaltenders beyond simple development issues.

2005 :

Price ; Good pick.
Rask ; Very good Goaltending, but similar situation to Schneider. The development period is very very long

2006 :

Bernier ; Awaits NHL opportunity, difficult to guage his future
Helenius ; Difficult to envisage him returning from Europe. Bust
Varlamov ; Established himself as a #1 this year. Took 6 years.
Irving ; Still awaits opportunity in Calgary. Will have some type of NHL career, but 6 years on we still don't know.

2007 :

None talen

2008 :

Pickard ; Development has been awful
McCollum ; Development has also been poor.

2009 :

None taken

We'll stop there, although the 2010 Goalie 1st round list hasn't developed as expected since.

The results are clearly mixed. Fair share of busts with a fair share of percieved quality Goaltenders. The only player listed to have been a starter for more than one year is Price, the highest Goalie taken. We have 2/3 young Goalies who are excellent prospects, but 6-8 years later, still await their chance. We then have a couple of older fringe goaltenders. This study is in no way deep enough to give any definitive answer given it has large limitations (Well no study would give a definitive answer), but it does highlight that drafting a Goaltender in the 1st round has many issues.
First of all, I applaud you for taking the time to write that up, and it's a very insightful breakdown. But the results that I took away from it were slightly different from what you came away with. I broke it down into 3 groups: 1)Busts(or what we can logically label as pretty much busted), 2)OK/or still not sure goalies, and 3)Successes, or at least those who look like they have very promising NHL careers in some cases.

In the 1)category I have 2 busts, Schwarz and Pickard.

2)5 goalies. Montoya, Dubnyk, Helenius, Irving, and McCollum. McCollum is treading dangerous territory, but then again I could have put Irving in the 3rd category if I was feeling really optimistic, as he's shown good steady progression and he was great in his first NHL callup stint. If Montoya can get back to his 10-11 form, he would move to the 3rd category.

3)5 goalies. Schneider, Price, Rask, Bernier, Varlamov.

So what I came away with was that there are more successes than busts. And wrt the 2nd category, even if you get a low level starter/backup, that's not a bad thing. You can always use a good backup. If you have a backup who can realistically push your starter, and they're on a cheap contract, it's even better.

A couple of other points, Helenius has come back over. TB signed him to a 2 way deal a couple days ago. And Varlamov has been a starter for more than just 1 year. He was clearly the starter in Washington for a couple years, although he did have some injuries.


Quote:
The tests are not that important to me. It doesn't alter their play on ice, which is by far the most important information scouts need. It's useful for understanding where the different athletes excel in, but it has it's limitations. No results at the combine have changed my mind on any prospect.
The tests do give an insight into how a prospect could potentially perform on the ice in the future. Combine test results have influenced picks before.


Quote:
Campbell has had a medicore OHL career. He's still projectable, but i think it's naive to say he's had anything other than a slightly disappointing two years post-draft. High end Forwards tend to be available through higher picks only, as the statistics do show.
Not true. Campbell was great in the WJC this year and his OHL season was much better compared to last. In total, yes, he has been slightly disappointing post-draft, but you are allowed to have one bad year. He is clearly going in the right direction now.

Quote:
It's irrelevant conjecture. Lundqvist and Miller haven't faired any better in the playoffs to date either, and Lundqvist had a very strong team this year. You need good Goaltending in the playoffs of course, but there are many other factors involved. SJ let Nabakov walk because he was on the decline. Nitty and Niemi aren't the reason SJ have failed in the playoffs recently. Given Niemi was an FA with Chicago, it's a somewhat contradicting point you are making. SJ don't have strong Goaltending, but there are greater issues than Goaltending with that core.
Come on, Lundqvist will probably win the Vezina, and he probably should have won it before also. You can't tell me they wouldn't have made a difference. Lundqvist has been great in the playoffs so far in his career, aside from team success, which isn't that shabby either. Miller was at one time considered the best in the league. Nabby was very good in his prime, but far from the best in the league for most of that time. Ever since Kipper got a chance in Calgary, he has been better.

Seriously? Nitty and Niemi are definitely a big part of why SJ has failed. It's not 100% their fault but they definitely shoulder part of the blame. And Niemi didn't carry Chicago to a Cup, that was an example of a team that won despite it's goaltending. His GAA and SV% has to be the worst of any Cup winning goalie in the last 15 years, if not it's close. He only won the Cup because he was better than Leighton and his teammates were better than every other goalie's teammates. He has some good games, sure, but he was an average goalie who went along for the ride. You said yourself he has been an average goalie. Goaltending has certainly been a big part of SJ's failures. Their goalies have been far from impeccable.


Quote:
Unsure of what point you are trying to assert here, so i will leave it alone. We've moved onto whether you need Elite Goaltending, but much of the elite goaltender you have cited does not come from the 1st round. Of course good Goaltenders can be drafted in the 1st round, but as your actial post indicates, many of the best Goaltenders today aren't from the 1st round, and as the limited study given early shows, 1st round Goalie picks do not really have a quicker timelime than other Goalie picks.
My point remains, that most Cups have been won by teams with elite goaltending. Obviously if you have an elite goalie who is consistently elite, then it gives you a better chance of getting elite goaltending in the playoffs.

The goalies I cited were just random. Brodeur and Giguere were 1st round picks. Richter was picked 28th overall, in the 2nd round, but today that would be the 1st round. Other goalies like Fleury and Ward aren't elite, but are capable of delivering elite goaltending from time to time. Ward is in the group just below today's elite.

As far as most of today's best goalies not coming from the 1st round, that hasn't stopped teams from drafting them in the 1st round. Every time, if you ask me who has better odds of cracking the NHL, the standout top prospect from the CHL or the 7th round project from Junior B, I will pick the former. Wouldn't you? As I said, your study indicated to me that there are more promising goalies selected from the 1st round than disappointing ones between 2004-2008, although it doesn't take into account later round picks, but so far as a whole those late picks don't look nearly as promising as the group of Schneider, Price, Rask, Bernier, and Varlamov.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 09:38 AM
  #150
angry_treefrog
Moderator
T63813A
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
This is the first time in the past decade that I am completely ambivalent about this draft.

If you account for the following:

1. The player we draft won't play for a few years
2. There's about a 25% chance that the pick will bust, a 50% chance that he will be a serviceable NHL player and a 25% chance that he will exceed expectations (10% chance of stardom)
3. There is a good chance that (because of the point we are at in this franchise's development) the player will be traded before he ever puts on the sweater

I just can't find myself getting into it much. Haven't researched any prospects - couldn't tell you who we should pick and why...

Honestly, it's a refreshing change from the usual "we NEED to get a good player here" draft angst.

angry_treefrog 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 01:49 PM.

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.