My choice here was Fairchild. He had a great year with the Rivermen and proved himself with an outstanding year. +/- is huge for team in which no other defenseman on the Rivermen even got close to those numbers. He at least gives us a valuable first call up. Not so sure I would want him riding the pine, but being the #1 or #2 guy for the Rivermen another year. Size, skill, and game may not transfer to the next level, but he deserves the opportunity to at least find out whether here or somewhere else. MacRae is a close 2nd. Call this a moneyball pick.
After a LOT of agonizing, I reluctantly voted for Fairchild here, ever-so-slightly ahead of Phil McRae. I am loathe to do such a thing, because I know that the complete well-rounded development of a defenceman is much more critical to a team than is that of a forward. Fairchild is really no closer to winning a regular NHL defensive shift position than McRae is to winning a Top 9 forward line position.
And, although both of their games have several holes, that if filled, each will have good all-around games, I went with Fairchild, due to his upside as an offensive defenceman. IF (and that's a VERY big if) Fairchild can gain a lot of strength, learn positioning well, improve his defensive awareness and add a lot more physicality and some more "toughness" to his game, he'd be worth more as a high-quality 2-way D-man, than McRae would, even as a 50-60 point 2nd line centre (should he progress that far). So Fairchild wins by a hair, based on greater upside potential value (despite the higher risk of his reaching that level).
To be honest, as much as I love Jani, I could have probably put together a case for Fairchild to be 5th on this list, and he certainly should be above anyone else.
Our fanbase on this site seems to have a lot lower expectations for McRae then most other places. That or we think our defensive depth chart is really really good, which is also true.
After a LOT of agonizing, I reluctantly voted for Fairchild here, ever-so-slightly ahead of Phil McRae. I am loathe to do such a thing, because I know that the complete well-rounded development of a defenceman is much more critical to a team than is that of a forward. Fairchild is really no closer to winning a regular NHL defensive shift position than McRae is to winning a Top 9 forward line position.
And, although both of their games have several holes, that if filled, each will have good all-around games, I went with Fairchild, due to his upside as an offensive defenceman. IF (and that's a VERY big if) Fairchild can gain a lot of strength, learn positioning well, improve his defensive awareness and add a lot more physicality and some more "toughness" to his game, he'd be worth more as a high-quality 2-way D-man, than McRae would, even as a 50-60 point 2nd line centre (should he progress that far). So Fairchild wins by a hair, based on greater upside potential value (despite the higher risk of his reaching that level).
Not a fan of smallish defensemen? +/- is pretty good for someone not to at least be in the right place to make or break up a play. You have probably seen him far more than I have... Is the +/- stat for him just lucky? He obviously isn't a bruiser. His offensive numbers are...ok. They didn't score much
A pretty easy vote for Fairchild for me here. He's a very good bet to develop into a 3rd pairing d-man, possibly 2nd pairing d-man. I'll probably vote for Wannstrom or McRae next.
The only reason I did not vote for Lehtera was because of the giant question mark of him ever coming here, arguably the most skilled prospect that is left. So I went with Fairchild just because of where he is now in his development. My next vote will be between MacEachern, McRae, and Edmundson with Wannstrom's name floating in there somewhere.
The only reason I did not vote for Lehtera was because of the giant question mark of him ever coming here, arguably the most skilled prospect that is left. So I went with Fairchild just because of where he is now in his development. My next vote will be between MacEachern, McRae, and Edmundson with Wannstrom's name floating in there somewhere.
Wannstrom is interesting as I really don't know where he fits in on the prospect list. He is a high pick coming from a very good league. He is signed and will be here....Does he surpass MacRae on speculation or do you give MacRae credit for putting up 23 goals and his skill set?
I have to stop reading the posts in the thread before i cast my vote. Voted Fairchild, but went in thinking McRae.
Let the rest of us influence ya, eh?
I'm hoping McRae can take a good step forward this season. I still see him as having 3rd line potential but I think he's going I have a hard time cracking the Blues' lineup anytime soon.
I don't think McRae is that far behind Fairchild so he is next on my list. Fairchild had an impressive season in Peoria and did not look out of place when he got some ice time with the Blues. At some point add Cody Beach.
Last edited by stlweir: 08-15-2012 at 09:15 PM.
Reason: addition
Wannstrom is interesting as I really don't know where he fits in on the prospect list. He is a high pick coming from a very good league. He is signed and will be here....Does he surpass MacRae on speculation or do you give MacRae credit for putting up 23 goals and his skill set?
That's a good question. I think I would pick McRae just because I know where his development is relative to Wannstrom. Wannstrom has been playing in an elite league and has not registered any impressive numbers, but as others point out, he's been playing on a bottom line role for most of his time in the elite club (I think, not entirely sure though) and so his stats could what role he has been given. So for now my nod goes to McRae because oh his time in the AHL, but that could change if Wannstrom puts up some decent numbers in Peoria and shows he can play a North American game
The only reason I did not vote for Lehtera was because of the giant question mark of him ever coming here, arguably the most skilled prospect that is left. So I went with Fairchild just because of where he is now in his development. My next vote will be between MacEachern, McRae, and Edmundson with Wannstrom's name floating in there somewhere.
I doubt he comes over either, but Lehtera does still belong in the Top 10 IMO. He's a boom or bust project and if the Blues were ready to give up on him then I don't think they would have re-signed him this Summer. With his injury there was almost no way he could prepare to make the jump this year even if he wanted to. I will admit the chance of it ever happening is very small, but just for the fact that there is that small possibility I think he deserves to stay in the mix.
I doubt he comes over either, but Lehtera does still belong in the Top 10 IMO. He's a boom or bust project and if the Blues were ready to give up on him then I don't think they would have re-signed him this Summer. With his injury there was almost no way he could prepare to make the jump this year even if he wanted to. I will admit the chance of it ever happening is very small, but just for the fact that there is that small possibility I think he deserves to stay in the mix.
Lehtera wasn't re-signed this summer. He declined signing a contract so the Blues just tendered him a qualifying offer to retain his rights. He deserves to stay in the mix but not quite in the top 10 due to how unlikely it is that I think he'll ever become an NHLer.
Lehtera wasn't re-signed this summer. He declined signing a contract so the Blues just tendered him a qualifying offer to retain his rights. He deserves to stay in the mix but not quite in the top 10 due to how unlikely it is that I think he'll ever become an NHLer.
Thanks for clearing that up. To me though, the whole "likeliness" factor is somewhat of a moot point. When you look at the percentages of how many of these prospects actually do make it to the NHL then you realize how small of a chance most of these guys really have. I guess it's just a matter of opinion, I just feel it shouldn't factor in too much to where you rank these guys. I like the idea of ranking them more on skill-set/ Etc, and I feel that as long as they are Blues prospects they all have a chance of making it. A good example is Nikita Nikitin.
Thanks for clearing that up. To me though, the whole "likeliness" factor is somewhat of a moot point. When you look at the percentages of how many of these prospects actually do make it to the NHL then you realize how small of a chance most of these guys really have. I guess it's just a matter of opinion, I just feel it shouldn't factor in too much to where you rank these guys. I like the idea of ranking them more on skill-set/ Etc, and I feel that as long as they are Blues prospects they all have a chance of making it. A good example is Nikita Nikitin.
I quests I just don't see why a player's likeliness to become an NHLer shouldn't be factored in. Nikitin was an aberration. Why ignore things just because there's an exception to the rule every now and then? That's what makes this an inexact science. Ignoring likeliness to become an NHLer when rating prospects would be like a bank ignoring their opinion on the likeliness of a loan to default when rating their loan portfolio. Just because every now and then a highly rated loan goes into default or a highly rated loan all of a sudden gets paid off doesn't mean that banks should ignore the rating process altogether just because there were a few exceptions. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and can vote whatever way you want but I see no reason to not include such risk factors, even if they are just opinions.
