I'll stick with Guptill for now, but a case could easily be made for Stransky. I feel like at this point it's more a matter of personal preference since none of the choices seem bad. Bystrom, Guptill, Molin, Ritichie, Stransky.
Going with Stransky here. Guptill is #12 for me. he's got all the tools(size, skating, hands), and had a really good freshman season in college at a big time school. Should improve his numbers this year to hopefully at least a point a game.
Stransky wins, but I stuck with my initial feeling to vote Ritchie. I'll take him next as well followed by Guptill and Bystrom.
I went with Ritchie as well. I think he has a better all around skillset and is a safer prospect. Stransky needs to do alot of work on his shooting and foot speed.
But does he have a higher ceiling? Ritchie to me seems likely to be a lower-line grinder.
I think Ritchie has 2nd line upside. Hes big, good wheels, and has a good shot. I can see the James Neal offensive comparison although very few people have has good of a shot as Neal. Stansky may have Ulf Dahlen like puck retaining abilities but everytime ive seen him his pace seems a bit slow.
I think Ritchie has 2nd line upside. Hes big, good wheels, and has a good shot. I can see the James Neal offensive comparison although very few people have has good of a shot as Neal. Stansky may have Ulf Dahlen like puck retaining abilities but everytime ive seen him his pace seems a bit slow.
I think he tries to do that. I have a feeling he'd flourish with a guy like Ribeiro (or Molin?).
That's what makes me know Stransky has 1A potential. If the guy is already slowing the game down to his own pace and succeeding, then his ceiling is pretty damn high for the level that he's currently playing.
Players who have that special ability are pretty rare. I always put those guys ahead of other guys (The one's who just work their ass off) Stransky works smarter, not harder.
But does he have a higher ceiling? Ritchie to me seems likely to be a lower-line grinder.
I think they have virtually the same upside. They could both be 2nd line wingers, but Ritchie could also play Bottom 6.
I honestly didn't factor in the likelihood of a player becoming a contributor to Dallas, but I think Ritchie has the better chance (not that it'll be easy for him either). I may be counting the chicken before it hatches in Chiasson's case, but I think it's pretty clear that Dallas already has 3 long term Top 6 pieces in Jamie Benn, Loui Eriksson, and Alex Chiasson. I'd honestly love to see that as the Top line for the next 10+ years. You'd have a line with excellent two-way play and puck possession. I do believe Benn's faceoff skills will imporve, and Chiasson offers an above average option for faceoffs as well. Plus you have the perfect compliment of a rightie and leftie to take faceoffs on one line. IMO, there's quite a bit to love about that trio's potential together.
I think a 4th piece is pretty much locked up in Cody Eakin or Radek Faksa. I'm really excited about those guys, but I don't want to go so far just yet to make them a lock like Benn and Eriksson. I think it's probably safe though if you expand to a Top 9 projection to say Eakin and Faksa could at least fill that role.
This pretty much leaves two spots open in the Top 6. Now I get that things change, and I'm just projecting. I still feel like that is a reasonable statement though. The competition for those two spots could be fierce. You're talking Reilly Smith, Fraser, Glennie, Vincour, Ritchie, Stransky, Guptill, Molin, etc, all with reasonable chances at a Top 6 role in the NHL. Of that list, at least at this point in their development and skills, only Reilly Smith, Glennie, Ritchie, and Vincour could also excel in a traditional 3rd line role. I saw Guptill about 4 times last year, and his defense wasn't bad or anything, but you could tell he still has a bit of that OJHL offensive first, cheat mentality. I believe though that more time in Michigan will work that out of him though to the point he could be a solid 3rd liner.
The thing is though I get all of the guys will not make it, but I think Stransky's path to a Dallas Stars roster spot is a little more complicated than a guy like Ritchie. Everything is just a wild ass guess at this point, but in general terms I think that's what your looking at. Plus, I'm not even considering the development of the 2012 draft class of Winther, Shore, Smith, and Troock at this point.
The 2009 draft class gets a leg up because of age and NHL readiness, but from 2010 on you're in the much and will be fighting for minutes in the Dallas forward ranks. Honestly, I think by the end of this season or even the trade deadline, it's not a stretch that Dallas could have three 2009 forwards in the Top 12: Vincour, Chiasson, and Glennie or Reilly.
Hey fellow Stars fans, I recently made an account after lurking around these forums for a while. I figured if I can't watch Stars hockey I can at least talk about it.
Not sure if my votes will count or not but I have Stransky here. Ritchie is very close but personally I like Stransky's game better.
I've been saying it a few times but I haven't explained it. I really don't think Ritchie should go anywhere near this spot. 12 isn't that high but it's too high IMO for Ritchie.
He had huge expectations coming into this season. If he performed like Sarnia wanted him too, he would have never been traded. He was supposed to become that big powerforward who could give you a motivating big hit, score a goal, but he was never that. He was an inconsistent big man who got dropped to the third line.
I watched Ritchie more than a few times last season and he never impressed me. It never seemed like he was working 100%, his offensive tools aren't that strong, for a big guy he's not banging his body that much. He's got talent but he doesn't always use it.
I don't want to be all negative about him but I just am so disappointed when I watch him. He's got the talent to be a top 6 player but he's got serious work. He's so raw, he's got a tonne of work. If he works really hard I think he can be a 50 point second liner who can kill penalties. If he keeps at the current pace I can't see him ever becoming more than an energy guy.
I've been saying it a few times but I haven't explained it. I really don't think Ritchie should go anywhere near this spot. 12 isn't that high but it's too high IMO for Ritchie.
He had huge expectations coming into this season. If he performed like Sarnia wanted him too, he would have never been traded. He was supposed to become that big powerforward who could give you a motivating big hit, score a goal, but he was never that. He was an inconsistent big man who got dropped to the third line.
I watched Ritchie more than a few times last season and he never impressed me. It never seemed like he was working 100%, his offensive tools aren't that strong, for a big guy he's not banging his body that much. He's got talent but he doesn't always use it.
I don't want to be all negative about him but I just am so disappointed when I watch him. He's got the talent to be a top 6 player but he's got serious work. He's so raw, he's got a tonne of work. If he works really hard I think he can be a 50 point second liner who can kill penalties. If he keeps at the current pace I can't see him ever becoming more than an energy guy.
Well he certainly improved after the trade and apparently looked really good at development camp.
Would you say you saw him more in Sarnia or Niagara?
I'll admit I'm not going to spend the money to watch OHL games here in Texas, but I listened to quite a few of his Niagara games in the playoffs. I saw two on replay on the NHL Network. I'd definitely trust your first hand account over mine, but it sounded like in Niagara the laziness left his game. He was very impressive in the two games I actually was able to watch though.
It just seems like the things that plagued him in Sarnia were not in his game that I saw with Niagara. He was a hard worker and a determined third line checker. Watching Niagara last year was a ton of fun because of how deep they were. Based on the guys graduating, and Ritchie's reports out of development camp, I think he could very well be poised for a breakout offensive season.
I get the feeling I'm discounting the poor play in Sarnia probably more than I should. I don't know the exact circumstances of that team, but something was off. If it was Ritchie pouting ... that's not a good thing.
The thing with Ritchie is they always say power forwards take longer to develop properly. On the other hand I really do see Ritchie as the kind of player every fanbase overrates into becoming a top 6 guy.. when in reality they never put it all together. I could very easily look forward in 5 years and see Ritchie as a bust.
I think Guptil needs more love than Ritchie, considering he scored more points as a Freshman in College than R. Smith did.
