If his last name was not Nanne there is no way on God's green earth he gets picked. He had 27 points all year in Minnesota high school last year (and Minnesota high school hockey is apparently viewed by scouts as so weak these days that almost no players were picked). He didn't even play on the first line for his team.
It's only a 7th round pick, and almost nobody from that round makes the NHL, but that's no reason to throw away the pick. This smacks of a team not even taking the draft seriously. It's simply a PR move, and a stupid one at that.
so are you mad that an anonymous guy who has an equally improbable chance of making the NHL didn't get called up? what is the difference when all is said and done?
so are you mad that an anonymous guy who has an equally improbable chance of making the NHL didn't get called up? what is the difference when all is said and done?
I don't know, we seemed to do pretty well on our 7th rounders latery (Haula, Graovac). If he was a legit pick, and only they really know that, then fine. Personally, I think they threw at away, but I'm not mad or anything.
yeah, i guess i should care a little more but it's like when we trade a 5th round pick for Simon or whoever. Not like that 5th rounder was likely going to be anything. especially in the Risbrough years.
yeah, i guess i should care a little more but it's like when we trade a 5th round pick for Simon or whoever. Not like that 5th rounder was likely going to be anything. especially in the Risbrough years.
I don't care if that round picks are traded for assets (I shed no tears for the 5th for Staubitz), but this one just seems like they had a plane to catch.
Not gonna completely defend the pick, but he was picked exactly where he was ranked (#188), so to say he was a "reach" or a "wasted pick" might just be a little over the top.
His central scouting ranking wasn't really defensible either. He is by all accounts a good kid and hard worker, but he simply isn't that good. Points are obviously not the only thing in assessing a hockey player, but I defy you to find me another Minnesota high school prospect who averaged less than a point a game as a forward and was drafted, muc less made it to the NHL. It's impossible to conclude that his name wasn't why he got drafted, regardless of Fletcher says, and I can't for the life of me see how that makes any sense.
xyz loves stats. have you seen him play or did you simply just look up his numbers? nanne was one of the better players in minnesota away from the puck. good physicality.. great character. he is going to develop for 4 or 5 years.. its not a bad pick.
You're right that points aren't everything, but they do mean something, and if a forward's skills don't put him far enough above the competition level in Minnesota high school hockey such that he provides quite a bit of offense, it's awfully hard to envision him succeeding at higher levels. And I've seen him play several times. He's a good Minnesota high school player, but not good enough to really stand out at that level, and he doesn't have much size (listed at 5'10", 166). He's universally regarded as a really good kid and I wish him well, but there is little reason to think he's going to develop into the kind of player you can't easily find as a free agent. Just among eligible Minnesotans, Besse, Will Merchant, and even A.J. Michaelson would have made a lot more sense as players who might some day bring things that you can't easily find, even after Michaelson's disappointing USHL season.
"On our list, we go down our book, and there was a name way ahead of Louie, so I was just looking at the board talking to [fellow scout] Brian Hunter next to me, saying, 'We're going with this kid,' " Marty Nanne said. "All of a sudden, I hear, 'From Edina, Minnesota, ...' I looked over and said, 'You've got to be kidding me?" -Louis Nannes Dad
So that right there means they are full of you know what when they say they drafted him because of skill. They had a much better player on their list, but chose Nanne for his name and to play to Minnesotans (in my opinion). Waste of a 7th round pick!
Russo's latest blog has some ammunition for this was a "legacy" pick. Wild scout Marty Nanne, Louie's dad, says that there was a much higher guy from their list on the board at the time.
What he doesn't say, is where that kid was from --juniors, Europe, or US. It could make a difference, as Fletcher is also quoted as saying he prefers in the later rounds kids bound for the NCAA as it increases the length of their contract rights as that "reach" (and past the fourth round, they're all "reaches") develops.
So if that other kid was Canadian juniors, or Euro, then this is still defensible on its own.
What is definitely clear is that Fletch and Flahr blindsided Marty, and probably loved the look on his face.
"On our list, we go down our book, and there was a name way ahead of Louie, so I was just looking at the board talking to [fellow scout] Brian Hunter next to me, saying, 'We're going with this kid,' " Marty Nanne said. "All of a sudden, I hear, 'From Edina, Minnesota, ...' I looked over and said, 'You've got to be kidding me?" -Louis Nannes Dad
So that right there means they are full of you know what when they say they drafted him because of skill. They had a much better player on their list, but chose Nanne for his name and to play to Minnesotans (in my opinion). Waste of a 7th round pick!
If you go on to his Dad's reasoning for those statements, he said he was concerned about him being drafted to the hometown team more than anything, not that he was surprised he was drafted period.
I disagree. I think he clearly states they had a player that is more highly rated on their list, in fact he was "way ahead of Louie". Fletcher and Flahr repeatedly say they stick to their board when drafting, but some reason they went off it for the 7th round pick. It seems reasonable that the reason was the name Nanne. Just an opinion. And it's just a 7th round pick, not a big deal in the long run. Just wish they wouldn't feed us the Company Line and be honest about it.
After all, it was the name, "Nanne," that caused NHL executive Jim Gregory to exclaim, "Wow!" on the draft stage.
It's also why Nanne asked his father to make sure the Wild didn't select him. Nobody wants to be considered a token pick, and that was the reaction by some on Twitter after Nanne was chosen.
"People are always going to say stuff about me or any other kid my age who's got a dad or a grandfather that played in the pros," said Nanne, who scored 24 points in 20 games last year and is heading to Penticton of the British Columbia Hockey League in the fall. "I guess I've got to show those people that much more. I'm excited and just as equally motivated.
"I've always been the type of kid to never let my name get in the way and always wanted to make a name for myself."
Wild GM Chuck Fletcher said the team didn't choose Nanne because he is Lou's grandkid.
"Every kid we call out we feel has a legitimate chance to play, but sure, Lou Nanne's meant a lot to hockey in Minnesota and certainly in the NHL as well," Fletcher said. "But [Louie], on his own, he's a good hockey player and just a high-character person. He's a kid our people feel has a chance to develop."
That's why Marty thinks it's good his son will head to Penticton before joining the U.
"Get away from Edina and Minnesota, mature, work on his game," he said. "His work ethic is phenomenal. He's a great two-way player. His whole thing is he's always the first forechecker and the first backchecker."
Nanne was one of three eventual college players the Wild selected Saturday (future Boston College center Adam Gilmour was taken in the fourth round).
There's a reason.
"In the later rounds, I think it's advantageous to look at kids going off to college just because you get longer development," Fletcher said. "Junior kids and Europeans, you only get two years [before they have to be signed]. College, it's four, sometimes five.
"We liked some other junior kids, but we'll get them [to development camp] on invites, so we'll end up looking at more players this way."
I'm just getting so tired of the obligatory Minnesota selections. Give it up. We care about winning, not having a hometown team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG
Not gonna completely defend the pick, but he was picked exactly where he was ranked (#188), so to say he was a "reach" or a "wasted pick" might just be a little over the top.
I believe that #188 is just among North American skaters, so when you include everybody that would push him lower.
Are we still talking about some 7th round pick and getting upset about it? IIRC, the rate of 7th rounders having an NHL career is somewhere around 3%. If anyone ever gets genuinely upset about not taking a "better player" with a 7th round pick, they need to just stop paying any attention to the management portion of hockey. Seriously.
I'm just getting so tired of the obligatory Minnesota selections. Give it up. We care about winning, not having a hometown team.
It's a 7th round pick. This is a team that desperately needs some media attention in this state, and is having difficulty with its current season ticket drive. If a "token selection" can get them the sort of media coverage they've already gotten (and it's sure to continue into the work week, and possibly up until the 4th) then it's worth dollars in Leipold's pocket. Dislike the hockey implications of the pick all you want, the media coverage of it is far more valuable to the team than a less than 5% shot at a player who might one day get a cup of coffee at the NHL level.
That fact right there is why it's not something to scoff at. There's very little difference between a 3rd rounder and a 7th rounder. You have to take the business seriously. With this pick the organization didn't. It's a cheap PR stunt.
That fact right there is why it's not something to scoff at. There's very little difference between a 3rd rounder and a 7th rounder. You have to take the business seriously. With this pick the organization didn't.
With the apparent success of the last two drafts, Flahr and Co. have built up enough cred with me to excuse them using a 7th round selection on this kid.
..and I would disagree...I think there is a BIG difference between a 3rd round pick and a 7th round pick.
That fact right there is why it's not something to scoff at. There's very little difference between a 3rd rounder and a 7th rounder. You have to take the business seriously. With this pick the organization didn't. It's a cheap PR stunt.
We've addressed this already. A 3rd round pick is worth more than 5 times as much as a 7th round pick (round average for 3rd is approximately 15% for a 7th is about 3%). Furthermore, when rounds are broken into thirds instead of being taken as all 30, the rate in the top third of each round (excluding the first and seventh) approximately doubles. Meaning a pick taken in the first third of the third round has approximately a 25% to 30% chance of having an NHL career while a pick in the 7th still has a 3% chance.
To put that in perspective for you, in 33 years of drafting in the 7th round, you would on average draft 1 player who has an NHL career.
With the apparent success of the last two drafts, Flahr and Co. have built up enough cred with me to excuse them using a 7th round selection on this kid.
I go with the three strikes rule. Strike 1 - none of the recent prospects have made an impact at the pro level, let alone the NHL. Strike 2 - even the best scouts are educated guessers that miss more than they hit. Strike 3 - I don't want a repeat of the previous management in which credibility gave them far too much leeway before their errors were scrutinized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG
..and I would disagree...I think there is a BIG difference between a 3rd round pick and a 7th round pick.
Well you disagree all you want on that, but history shows that there's very little difference once you get past the 2nd round. In some years the 7th actually outproduces the 3rd. Crazy but true.
I go with the three strikes rule. Strike 1 - none of the recent prospects have made an impact at the pro level, let alone the NHL. Strike 2 - even the best scouts are educated guessers that miss more than they hit. Strike 3 - I don't want a repeat of the previous management in which credibility gave them far too much leeway before their errors were scrutinized.
Well you disagree all you want on that, but history shows that there's very little difference once you get past the 2nd round. In some years the 7th actually outproduces the 3rd. Crazy but true.
Both of these statements are 100% quantifiably false. They were false the last time you claimed them. They will continue to be false the next time you claim them. They are not true and further posting of them is trolling.
Well you disagree all you want on that, but history shows that there's very little difference once you get past the 2nd round. In some years the 7th actually outproduces the 3rd. Crazy but true.
