HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

NHL Mock Draft 2012 Edition (Canucks pick G Malcom Subban)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-20-2012, 08:11 AM
  #76
NFLDPower
Shi Shi Shawww
 
NFLDPower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Was it wrong for the Canucks to draft Schneider at 26th in 2004?
Not the same situation. We actually have depth in goal at the moment. Whereas in 04 our number 1 goalie was Alex Auld/Dan Cloutier with no prospects to be hopeful for.

I would much rather try and get a player like we did with Jensen last year. A big, skilled skater that could play for us in 2-3 years (or sooner). We don't need to use a 1st on a goalie for another few years in my opinion.

NFLDPower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:20 AM
  #77
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFLDPower View Post
Not the same situation. We actually have depth in goal at the moment. Whereas in 04 our number 1 goalie was Alex Auld/Dan Cloutier with no prospects to be hopeful for.

I would much rather try and get a player like we did with Jensen last year. A big, skilled skater that could play for us in 2-3 years (or sooner). We don't need to use a 1st on a goalie for another few years in my opinion.
It doesn't matter if you have depth at position, IMO you take the player who has the potential to have the biggest impact on the organization, not the roster. You are drafting the best player available, not the best position available.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:27 AM
  #78
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It doesn't matter if you have depth at position, IMO you take the player who has the potential to have the biggest impact on the organization, not the roster. You are drafting the best player available, not the best position available.
Agreed. The arguments people are making stating that Schneider drafted in the 1st round was a different situation because we had nothing but Cloutier and Auld are completely nonsensical. If anything, they support the idea of drafting a goalie.

It took Schneider 8 years to be ready for prime time. Nobody has a clue what this organization will look like in 8 years. By that time Schneider may have flamed out, Lack broken his leg, and Cannata traded. Suddenly a goalie is once again the top priority.

By most accounts, this draft is fairly weak in terms of forward prospects. Subban has a good pedigree and may be the best player available by the time we pick. He's also poised to be the starter for team Canada in the WJC which is good for any young players' development. If the Canucks think he's a good prospect, you take him if he's there.

B-rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:29 AM
  #79
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
Collberg would be my pick if the draft was those 25 before us. I have no problem taking Subban if he is the BPA though. Who knows where we will be with our goalies 3-4 years from now. I hear so much about our goaltending depth, but that is largely due to Luongo/Schnieder, of which, we will trade one soon. No other goalie has proven anything at the NHL level yet. Sure Lack has done well at the AHL, but so have many others who amounted to nothing in the NHL.

With the perceived garbage offers I've seen for Luongo, I'm inclined to trade Schneider to Columbus for the second overall + other assets and then drafting Subban 26th to hopefully develop in 3-5 years would fit in well.
With that mindset, you'll never be happy with your goaltending depth. We are more or less at our theoretical limit for how good goaltending depth can be: a bonafide starter (Luongo), being displaced by a younger putative bonafide starter (Schneider), with a NHL-ready backup with sufficient seasoning in the AHL (Lack), whose current position is vied for by our college standout goalie (Cannata). The only piece we don't have is another promising younger goalie looking to displace Cannata, but to me, that is overkill at the moment.

By all means, stick to the gameplan and draft a goalie at some point during the draft, maybe in the third round or later, or possibly through free agency like how we acquired Lack. But to burn our first on a guy like Subban is just poor asset management because unlike skaters, goalie value drops the minute you draft them. Look how long it took before Schneider's perceive value rose back to his original draft position. Maybe the trade deadline in '10-'11?

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:36 AM
  #80
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
With that mindset, you'll never be happy with your goaltending depth. We are more or less at our theoretical limit for how good goaltending depth can be: a bonafide starter (Luongo), being displaced by a younger putative bonafide starter (Schneider), with a NHL-ready backup with sufficient seasoning in the AHL (Lack), whose current position is vied for by our college standout goalie (Cannata). The only piece we don't have is another promising younger goalie looking to displace Cannata, but to me, that is overkill at the moment.

By all means, stick to the gameplan and draft a goalie at some point during the draft, maybe in the third round or later, or possibly through free agency like how we acquired Lack. But to burn our first on a guy like Subban is just poor asset management because unlike skaters, goalie value drops the minute you draft them. Look how long it took before Schneider's perceive value rose back to his original draft position. Maybe the trade deadline in '10-'11?
You might want to note that the reason our goaltending is so good is because the two top guys were in fact first round picks. Lack and Cannata are great depth, but that's all they currently are. Hoping to get a quality net minder for development in the later rounds is far more of a crap shoot than drafting and developing a bonafide first round talent in net.

Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:39 AM
  #81
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Honzik took a substantial step back in development and isn't even the starter on his team.

Nashville took Chet Pickard with their 1st rounder a number of years ago, and even though he hasn't developed as planned, it was still a decent pick imo.

But yeah BPA always, trade for need.

Also to those people saying that we should be drafting high end talent at 26, generally high end offensive talent is gone by the top half of the draft, unless you're going after players with significant holes in their game, like Rob Schremp. And usually then, only teams with multiple 1st round picks can afford to try their luck with one of these players.


Last edited by GoTeamDom: 06-20-2012 at 08:55 AM.
GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:47 AM
  #82
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
You might want to note that the reason our goaltending is so good is because the two top guys were in fact first round picks. Lack and Cannata are great depth, but that's all they currently are. Hoping to get a quality net minder for development in the later rounds is far more of a crap shoot than drafting and developing a bonafide first round talent in net.
The rate of attrition for goaltending is low once a starter is identified. Starters are rarely traded and for good reason. The depth we have is more than sufficient so long as you're comfortable with one of Schneider or Luongo playing 60+ games for the next 3-4 years, which in my mind is not an unreasonable expectation. During that time, we'll have two decent lines in the water in Lack and Cannata, which IMO affords us the luxury of swinging for the fences on a goalie with a later round pick or through free agency. And it's not like Malcolm Subban has the same credentials as Luongo (justifiably picked at #4) or even Schneider (strong showing at WJC). Plus, at the time of Schneider's draft, goaltending depth was in fact abysmal.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:58 AM
  #83
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
The rate of attrition for goaltending is low once a starter is identified. Starters are rarely traded and for good reason. The depth we have is more than sufficient so long as you're comfortable with one of Schneider or Luongo playing 60+ games for the next 3-4 years, which in my mind is not an unreasonable expectation. During that time, we'll have two decent lines in the water in Lack and Cannata, which IMO affords us the luxury of swinging for the fences on a goalie with a later round pick or through free agency. And it's not like Malcolm Subban has the same credentials as Luongo (justifiably picked at #4) or even Schneider (strong showing at WJC). Plus, at the time of Schneider's draft, goaltending depth was in fact abysmal.
Schneider didn't play in the WJC until after he was drafted. His showing was above avg, but I don't recall him being a star in that tournament. Interestingly though, Subban may be Canada's goalie for this year's WJC.

I don't necessarily think the Canucks should go out their way to draft the kid, but if he's there by the time they make their pick and none of the other guys that they had an eye on made it to that point, then I think Subban is a good pick, regardless of whether or not the Canucks need another goalie. This draft just sounds like a complete crapshoot with fairly middling prospects.

B-rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:06 AM
  #84
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,255
vCash: 500
Interesting that if it comes down to Forsberg or Grigorenko, most mocks take Forsberg first. His upside is lower. I guess he plays a more gritty type of a game, but I still find it interesting. It's not as clear who I would take.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:23 AM
  #85
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
Schneider didn't play in the WJC until after he was drafted. His showing was above avg, but I don't recall him being a star in that tournament. Interestingly though, Subban may be Canada's goalie for this year's WJC.

I don't necessarily think the Canucks should go out their way to draft the kid, but if he's there by the time they make their pick and none of the other guys that they had an eye on made it to that point, then I think Subban is a good pick, regardless of whether or not the Canucks need another goalie. This draft just sounds like a complete crapshoot with fairly middling prospects.
You're correct. He didn't play for team USA until 2004 and 2005. He played well in both tourneys and won gold on '04. As for my central argument, I stand by it: drafting BPA is a good general policy except in two cases: goalies and stay-at-home dmen. Neither is a readily liquifiable asset in the years after they've been drafted, which defeats the purpose of drafting BPA (flipping an asset for an identified need later on). Zach Kassian can net you Cody Hodgson and David Rundblad can net you Kyle Turris. Cory Schneider in '08, despite developing exceptionally well since being drafted, might net you a mid 2nd and futures.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:36 AM
  #86
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
You're correct. He didn't play for team USA until 2004 and 2005. He played well in both tourneys and won gold on '04. As for my central argument, I stand by it: drafting BPA is a good general policy except in two cases: goalies and stay-at-home dmen. Neither is a readily liquifiable asset in the years after they've been drafted, which defeats the purpose of drafting BPA (flipping an asset for an identified need later on). Zach Kassian can net you Cody Hodgson and David Rundblad can net you Kyle Turris. Cory Schneider in '08, despite developing exceptionally well since being drafted, might net you a mid 2nd and futures.
Varlamov was traded for a 1st (11th overall) and a 2nd rounder...he was picked 23rd in 2006. There are also a TON of forwards/defense taken in the 1st round who don't amount to squat.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:48 AM
  #87
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Varlamov was traded for a 1st (11th overall) and a 2nd rounder...he was picked 23rd in 2006. There are also a TON of forwards/defense taken in the 1st round who don't amount to squat.
Varlamov played one season in the KHL before being afforded the opportunity to play 6 games in the NHL in his second season and 27 games in his third for a bottom-feed Washington team. Varlamov's career trajectory is definitely not the norm. How do you see Malcolm Subban career path once drafted by the Canucks at #26? See him warranting a similar return in '16? With history as my guide, I sure don't.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:49 AM
  #88
trytobe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Was it wrong for the Canucks to draft Schneider at 26th in 2004?
Kind of off-topic but with Schneider, Edler, Hansen, and Mike f***ing Brown that was a pretty damn good draft for the Nucks. I was checking for players who were picked within 10 picks of Schneider to answer your question, and in a draft that seemed to be pretty shallow we managed to grab a top goalie, good-to-great dman and a great role player in Hansen.

trytobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:01 AM
  #89
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Varlamov played one season in the KHL before being afforded the opportunity to play 6 games in the NHL in his second season and 27 games in his third for a bottom-feed Washington team. Varlamov's career trajectory is definitely not the norm. How do you see Malcolm Subban career path once drafted by the Canucks at #26? See him warranting a similar return in '16? With history as my guide, I sure don't.
I don't see why Subban couldn't return the same or better if he develops into a Varlamov/Schneider level prospect...which isn't out of the realm of probability...either way, his boom/bust potential is the same as any other player we could take at 26th.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:14 AM
  #90
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I don't see why Subban couldn't return the same or better if he develops into a Varlamov/Schneider level prospect...which isn't out of the realm of probability...either way, his boom/bust potential is the same as any other player we could take at 26th.
Because if anything the path to becoming a valuable asset is even more difficult than when Schneider was here. Then, he 'only' needed to cement his place as a premier backup to a goalie notorious for his workhorse-like 70+ game schedule and then proceed to outduel him once he got there. Subban is stuck behind Cannata, Lack and Schneider. It's a near mortal lock he'd never exceed the value of the pick spent on drafting him.

And look at what happens when it all works out with goalies: San Jose was a veritable goalie factory in the late nineties to early 2000's - and never spent a pick higher than the fourth round for one, I might add - and their return on investment under nearly optimal conditions was modest.

Compare that to a late first round pick of a forward like, say, David Perron. What do think the Blue could get for him at the draft? At minimum a Varlamov-like return and Perron's career projection is hardly atypical for a forward (and even hampered by concussion concerns at that).

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:22 AM
  #91
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
Schneider didn't play in the WJC until after he was drafted. His showing was above avg, but I don't recall him being a star in that tournament. Interestingly though, Subban may be Canada's goalie for this year's WJC.

I don't necessarily think the Canucks should go out their way to draft the kid, but if he's there by the time they make their pick and none of the other guys that they had an eye on made it to that point, then I think Subban is a good pick, regardless of whether or not the Canucks need another goalie. This draft just sounds like a complete crapshoot with fairly middling prospects.
Schneider played in 2 tournaments. In his first one, he only got into part of one game - the US completely wet the bed, and he was left with a dubious 7.94GAA and a .625SVP.

The next year, the WJC was held in Vancouver. He was arguably one of the US's top players, and I think he won Player of the Game for them at least twice, including once against Canada. He was definitely a standout at that one.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:25 AM
  #92
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Because if anything the path to becoming a valuable asset is even more difficult than when Schneider was here. Then, he 'only' needed to cement his place as a premier backup to a goalie notorious for his workhorse-like 70+ game schedule and then proceed to outduel him once he got there. Subban is stuck behind Cannata, Lack and Schneider. It's a near mortal lock he'd never exceed the value of the pick spent on drafting him.

And look at what happens when it all works out with goalies: San Jose was a veritable goalie factory in the late nineties to early 2000's - and never spent a pick higher than the fourth round for one, I might add - and their return on investment under nearly optimal conditions was modest.

Compare that to a late first round pick of a forward like, say, David Perron. What do think the Blue could get for him at the draft? At minimum a Varlamov-like return and Perron's career projection is hardly atypical for a forward (and even hampered by concussion concerns at that).
Why do you automatically assume that Subban would be "stuck behind" Lack or Cannata? Subban has just as good, or better, of an opportunity to displace either Lack or Cannata.

I'm not saying I want Subban at 26th, but I would take him over a lot of other players who might be available at that point.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:28 AM
  #93
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 7,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Because if anything the path to becoming a valuable asset is even more difficult than when Schneider was here. Then, he 'only' needed to cement his place as a premier backup to a goalie notorious for his workhorse-like 70+ game schedule and then proceed to outduel him once he got there. Subban is stuck behind Cannata, Lack and Schneider. It's a near mortal lock he'd never exceed the value of the pick spent on drafting him.

And look at what happens when it all works out with goalies: San Jose was a veritable goalie factory in the late nineties to early 2000's - and never spent a pick higher than the fourth round for one, I might add - and their return on investment under nearly optimal conditions was modest.

Compare that to a late first round pick of a forward like, say, David Perron. What do think the Blue could get for him at the draft? At minimum a Varlamov-like return and Perron's career projection is hardly atypical for a forward (and even hampered by concussion concerns at that).
Yep. Thing about goalie is, they can never reach their full trade value until they at least start a full season. When that happens, your team probably can't risk losing a starting goalie without a sure-fire stud backup.

We're in that situation right now, but Luongo's 33 and has a NTC, which is pretty undesirable and thus has lower trade value.

If we're a team like Nashville, maybe we consider taking Subban? Develop goalies, make them look great under a defensive system and trade them. That's not the Canucks though.

Wilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:42 AM
  #94
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Why do you automatically assume that Subban would be "stuck behind" Lack or Cannata? Subban has just as good, or better, of an opportunity to displace either Lack or Cannata.

I'm not saying I want Subban at 26th, but I would take him over a lot of other players who might be available at that point.
Because of when he was drafted. Guaranteed he wouldn't play himself onto the team out of training camp this year. That much is a given. Then he's got two years on the CHL before AHL eligibility when he'd have to battle ostensibly with Cannata for a job on the Wolves. Then, assuming he wins the starters job, there's literally no way he wouldn't play at least one full season at the bare minimum in the AHL before getting a crack at the show. There, if Lack hasn't been dealt, he might have to outcompete him for the back-up job before even getting a shot a single game of NHL experience (barring severe injuries). And it wouldn't be until then, that he'd even have much trade value whatsoever.

Like Wilch was saying, goalies are only extremely valuable when you no longer want to part with them. They're simply not the kind of asset a team normally stockpiles with the intent of dealing away from position of strength for one of need. Just not a good return on investment even if (big if) everything goes as planned.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 11:07 AM
  #95
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,661
vCash: 50
Subban is a good 3-5 years away from playing in the NHL so picking him would not be a horrible move IF he was BPA at that point. That said, I think there will be others still available to be picked as Subban, IMO, will be picked before Canuck's turn.

But a goalie will be drafted by Canucks at some point - heard they interviewed Makarov 3 times leading up to today.

Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 11:32 AM
  #96
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,238
vCash: 500
If Grigs is falling that low, we damn well better be trading up.

On Subban, as others have said Schneider was drafted 8 years ago and is now finally ready for #1 duties. 8 years from now, Schneider will be the same age Luongo is now. We do have other goalies in our system like Lack and Cannata, but I foresee Lack being traded to start in another organization assuming we keep Schneider.

Still though, I don't like using 1st round picks on goalies and even defensemen unless it's a slam dunk. You seem to be able to get quality goalies and defensemen in the 2nd round or later, while it's much more difficult to find talented forward prospects later on in the draft. So far, Gillis seems to agree with me haha.. He's taken a forward in the 1st round every year he's had that pick (Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen). Defensemen develop later so it's difficult to determine who will be good at the age of 18. It's easier with forwards to scout high end talent at that age. Just my two cents...

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 12:04 PM
  #97
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
Schneider played in 2 tournaments. In his first one, he only got into part of one game - the US completely wet the bed, and he was left with a dubious 7.94GAA and a .625SVP.

The next year, the WJC was held in Vancouver. He was arguably one of the US's top players, and I think he won Player of the Game for them at least twice, including once against Canada. He was definitely a standout at that one.
I know he played in 2 tournaments, but if you read what I posted, I said he didn't play in the WJC until AFTER he was drafted by the Canucks. He was drafted by the Canucks in 2004 and played 1 game in the 2004-2005 WJC and then 6 games in the 2005-2006 WJC.

The point being, that the Canucks took a flyer on him in the 1st round before any accomplishments had been made by Schneider in the WJC. This compares to Subban who hasn't accomplished anything in the WJC at this point, but may do so as early as this year, by being the goalie Canada selects as their starter.

B-rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 12:18 PM
  #98
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
I know he played in 2 tournaments, but if you read what I posted, I said he didn't play in the WJC until AFTER he was drafted by the Canucks. He was drafted by the Canucks in 2004 and played 1 game in the 2004-2005 WJC and then 6 games in the 2005-2006 WJC.

The point being, that the Canucks took a flyer on him in the 1st round before any accomplishments had been made by Schneider in the WJC. This compares to Subban who hasn't accomplished anything in the WJC at this point, but may do so as early as this year, by being the goalie Canada selects as their starter.
Oh no, I understand that you knew he played after. I was just saying that he was actually quite strong in the second tournament and he earned kudos for his good play for Team USA.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 12:19 PM
  #99
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
Oh no, I understand that you knew he played after. I was just saying that he was actually quite strong in the second tournament and he earned kudos for his good play for Team USA.
Ah right, I see.

B-rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 12:27 PM
  #100
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
You're correct. He didn't play for team USA until 2004 and 2005. He played well in both tourneys and won gold on '04. As for my central argument, I stand by it: drafting BPA is a good general policy except in two cases: goalies and stay-at-home dmen. Neither is a readily liquifiable asset in the years after they've been drafted, which defeats the purpose of drafting BPA (flipping an asset for an identified need later on). Zach Kassian can net you Cody Hodgson and David Rundblad can net you Kyle Turris. Cory Schneider in '08, despite developing exceptionally well since being drafted, might net you a mid 2nd and futures.
I tend to agree with this. Its difficult to draft a goalie there unless its a glaring organizational need or you feel its a sure thing.

Being so close to a cup means we need tradeable or useful assets now. If there are players that will be tradeable or useful nearer in the future than a goalie, I think you go for the player.

AvantiCanada* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 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.