HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

AAA 2012 Draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 02:52 PM
  #76
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Comments on Round 1 picks:

Seth Martin: It's difficult to see how he's not the best goalie in the draft, and also the best player. Comparing goalies to forwards this far down is difficult, but Martin stood above all other available goalies in a way that no other positional player even approached.

Eddie Olczyk: It's strange that chaos didn't like the pick at first. I don't see what's not to like. He wasn't a bad all-around player, and his 5-6 best seasons are right in line with about 9 other guys who are all good 1st line centers in this. There is very little separating this group and I think he's in it. he's not one of the first few I'd have personally taken, but that's me splitting hairs.

Don Raleigh: Absolutely the best pre-expansion center available. Percentage scores miles ahead of the next best guy. And he didn't benefit from better linemates either, from the looks of things. Also had an epic playoff.

Pelle Eklund: Did he do a lot outside of the NHL (before age 22 and after age 30) that I'm not aware of? His NHL numbers are decent. But not great either. Not a line killer (I had him top-20 for post-expansion NHL scoring centers), but a good step behind the Olczyks and Jokinens of this draft.
What does Olczyk have over Eklund besides that he played 4 seasons before 22? Olczyk wasnt nearly as good two-way center in his younger days as Eklund were. Eklunds has better playoff performances, a better international track record (although both were dissapointments in the CC's).

Olczyk might have a small edge in regular season scoring as his .77 PPG probably gets boosted a bit since he played a bit into the dead-puck era.

Pelle Eklund is better than Jokinen in every way except regular season offense.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 03:02 PM
  #77
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
What does Olczyk have over Eklund besides that he played 4 seasons before 22? Olczyk wasnt nearly as good two-way center in his younger days as Eklund were. Eklunds has better playoff performances, a better international track record (although both were dissapointments in the CC's).

Olczyk might have a small edge in regular season scoring as his .77 PPG probably gets boosted a bit since he played a bit into the dead-puck era.

Pelle Eklund is better than Jokinen in every way except regular season offense.
Well, for starters the exact reason Olczyk's PPG is not much higher is because he played so much more hockey. If you just look at their best 6 seasons, Eklund scored 0.88 PPG to Olczyk's 1.03. Everything else Olczyk did in addition to that (0.73 PPG over his next 5 best seasons, for example) is gravy on top of that.

They both have identical records as penalty killers. Eklund appears to have a slight PP advantage. Olczyk at ES crushes him though, scoring at a 26% higher rate despite nearly twice as many games.

Eklund definitely has a better playoff record, but we're talking about just a 17% edge in production, and this represents a rather small part of each of their careers, even if we all agree playoffs are more important.

As for Jokinen, I can let his GM address that if he chooses, but from my vantage point he appears to be on another level entirely.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 04:44 PM
  #78
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
What does Olczyk have over Eklund besides that he played 4 seasons before 22? Olczyk wasnt nearly as good two-way center in his younger days as Eklund were. Eklunds has better playoff performances, a better international track record (although both were dissapointments in the CC's).

Olczyk might have a small edge in regular season scoring as his .77 PPG probably gets boosted a bit since he played a bit into the dead-puck era.

Pelle Eklund is better than Jokinen in every way except regular season offense.
Olczyk and Eklund were both in my old "Hockey Superstars" book by Paul Romanuk. Always a good pick when you can grab a superstar in the AAA draft!

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 05:13 PM
  #79
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
More on Eklund/Olczyk:

Linemates are a factor, too. These are Olczyk's best seasons, broken down a little further:

1989: 90 points. Led Toronto by a wide margin; 15 points. that includes players like Leeman, and also Damphousse, who was just a year younger.

1990: 88 points, 3rd on Toronto. Played with Leeman and Damphousse, who had 94 and 95. He was 3rd, but was not far enough behind that anyone would call him a point suck.

1988: Led Toronto with 75 points, 14 more than 2nd place.

1986: 79 points, 3rd on Chicago, behind Savard (obviously) and Troy Murray. Murray had 99 points, in a Ryan Kesler-ish output he wouldn't come close to repeating. Since Larmer and Savard were joined at the hip, he presumably played with Murray. It's interesting that, although he had the lowest PPG on his line (Curt Fraser was the other winger), he outscored both of Savard's wingers - Secord and Larmer.

1992: 65 points, 2nd on Jets, 1st among forwards. Clearly Housley and Olausson ran that offense, but Olczyk was their most prolific forward, scoring 15 more than anyone else.

1991: 57 points in 61 games after coming over from Toronto (0.93). This was easily the 2nd best scoring rate among forwards, after Thomas Steen (1.16). After that, it was Pat Elyniuk, who played with Steen (0.81) and Brent Ashton (0.59) who, based on the roster, I presume played with Steen as well. This means the best linemates Olczyk could have had were Paul MacDermid (0.52) and Doug Evans (0.49).

In Eklund's case, in at least a few of his relevant offensive seasons, didn't he play with Tim Kerr? Kerr, of course, topped a point per game every season from 1984-1990, excluding '88; Eklund never did.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 05:55 PM
  #80
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
More on Eklund/Olczyk:

Linemates are a factor, too. These are Olczyk's best seasons, broken down a little further:

1989: 90 points. Led Toronto by a wide margin; 15 points. that includes players like Leeman, and also Damphousse, who was just a year younger.

1990: 88 points, 3rd on Toronto. Played with Leeman and Damphousse, who had 94 and 95. He was 3rd, but was not far enough behind that anyone would call him a point suck.

1988: Led Toronto with 75 points, 14 more than 2nd place.

1986: 79 points, 3rd on Chicago, behind Savard (obviously) and Troy Murray. Murray had 99 points, in a Ryan Kesler-ish output he wouldn't come close to repeating. Since Larmer and Savard were joined at the hip, he presumably played with Murray. It's interesting that, although he had the lowest PPG on his line (Curt Fraser was the other winger), he outscored both of Savard's wingers - Secord and Larmer.

1992: 65 points, 2nd on Jets, 1st among forwards. Clearly Housley and Olausson ran that offense, but Olczyk was their most prolific forward, scoring 15 more than anyone else.

1991: 57 points in 61 games after coming over from Toronto (0.93). This was easily the 2nd best scoring rate among forwards, after Thomas Steen (1.16). After that, it was Pat Elyniuk, who played with Steen (0.81) and Brent Ashton (0.59) who, based on the roster, I presume played with Steen as well. This means the best linemates Olczyk could have had were Paul MacDermid (0.52) and Doug Evans (0.49).

In Eklund's case, in at least a few of his relevant offensive seasons, didn't he play with Tim Kerr? Kerr, of course, topped a point per game every season from 1984-1990, excluding '88; Eklund never did.
Eklund was used pretty much as the defensive guy on his line at all time. This is what I meant with Olczyk wasnt that good of a two-way player in his early years.

Its funny that you bring up Kerr who was injury plagued most of the time Eklund was there. He played with different linemates most of those seasons. I think the best offensive line he was on were with Propp and Tocchet. Also Eklunds problem werent his on ice skills but having Keenan as coach and his knee injuries. Eklund is most likely the best playmaker here.

As for Olczyk I dont think they are worlds apart. Pretty similiar if you ask me. Both are ahead of Jokinen though.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 05:58 PM
  #81
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Olczyk and Eklund were both in my old "Hockey Superstars" book by Paul Romanuk. Always a good pick when you can grab a superstar in the AAA draft!
They were both highly rated when they were young in the NHL, people loved them. Both were tough but in different ways.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 06:43 PM
  #82
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,742
vCash: 500
With our third pick, the Macon Whoopee select Richard Matvichuk, D


tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 06:54 PM
  #83
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
The Steelers picks: Joe Murphy, RW

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:03 PM
  #84
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Awesome pick. Really like it.

As BBS will probably tell you, I was a very big proponent of selecting him in the MLD as a 6th defenseman.
So good I was hoping he'd make it back around

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:19 PM
  #85
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Eklund was used pretty much as the defensive guy on his line at all time. This is what I meant with Olczyk wasnt that good of a two-way player in his early years.

Its funny that you bring up Kerr who was injury plagued most of the time Eklund was there. He played with different linemates most of those seasons. I think the best offensive line he was on were with Propp and Tocchet. Also Eklunds problem werent his on ice skills but having Keenan as coach and his knee injuries. Eklund is most likely the best playmaker here.

As for Olczyk I dont think they are worlds apart. Pretty similiar if you ask me. Both are ahead of Jokinen though.
Kerr still played well over 2/3 of his scheduled games aside from 1988, and scouting reports call him his regular linemate.

Regardless of who he played with, it appears his linemates always outscored him, is that correct?

as for his defense, I get mixed answers. one guide says he's "surprisingly good", the next one says "Keenan doesn't want to use him at the end of a close game".

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:29 PM
  #86
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Kerr still played well over 2/3 of his scheduled games aside from 1988, and scouting reports call him his regular linemate.

Regardless of who he played with, it appears his linemates always outscored him, is that correct?

as for his defense, I get mixed answers. one guide says he's "surprisingly good", the next one says "Keenan doesn't want to use him at the end of a close game".
Both are right, Keenan didnt want to use a small swede. He wanted big physical canadians. Sadly he only have one vote for Selke or something like that.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 07:38 PM
  #87
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Both are right, Keenan didnt want to use a small swede. He wanted big physical canadians. Sadly he only have one vote for Selke or something like that.
Where does that leave us though, in terms of how good defensively we are to believe he was? You and I are just historians doing the best we can with the info we had. Keenan is one of the most successful NHL coaches of all-time.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:24 PM
  #88
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Where does that leave us though, in terms of how good defensively we are to believe he was? You and I are just historians doing the best we can with the info we had. Keenan is one of the most successful NHL coaches of all-time.
I would not say that he is successful. He was aggressive and he is definitly not bad but he also one of those who couldn't stand the euros and clashed with basically every star he met. He had some success in his first 8-9 years but what happened after that. He was exposed, hard to work with even went so far as to trying (and succeeding) in sabotaging a franchise.

I don't see him as the best source for information about any player. I even doubt that Eklund would have played as much as he did if Keenan could find even an half as decent playmaker for the flyers.

Perhaps we could even blame Keenan for Eklund short career as he didn't like his player to rest when injured and definitly not the soft swede. There were also the divorce where the ex-wife left for Sweden with their son. Eklunds best seasons came when Keenan was gone.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:26 PM
  #89
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I would not say that he is successful. He was aggressive and he is definitly not bad but he also one of those who couldn't stand the euros and clashed with basically every star he met. He had some success in his first 8-9 years but what happened after that. He was exposed, hard to work with even went so far as to trying (and succeeding) in sabotaging a franchise.

I don't see him as the best source for information about any player. I even doubt that Eklund would have played as much as he did if Keenan could find even an half as decent playmaker for the flyers.

Perhaps we could even blame Keenan for Eklund short career as he didn't like his player to rest when injured and definitly not the soft swede. There were also the divorce where the ex-wife left for Sweden with their son. Eklunds best seasons came when Keenan was gone.
Keenan certainly had his weaknesses, but why do you say he hated the Euros?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 08:40 PM
  #90
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,634
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Pelle Eklund is better than Jokinen in every way except regular season offense.
Eklund has an advantage in playoff offense only because he has an actual resume in the playoffs. Jokinen has played just 6 playoff games, but had 5 points. As a center, Jokinen is basically all offense whereas Eklund has some defensive ability, but not nearly enough to bridge the large gap between the two offensively. Jokinen has better size, but doesn't really use it that well except for using it to shield and protect the puck. Here are Eklund's scoring ranks among players on his team: 6, 6, 9, 4, 4, 2, 12, 7. Here are Jokinen's: 10, 9, 13, 7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2*, 4**, 3, 2.

*Partial season in Phoenix, but still 2nd on team, total would still have him 2nd
**Partial season in Calgary, total points would have him 3rd

Now, that doesn't consider the fact that Eklund played on better teams than Jokinen did. The fact that Jokinen's career adjusted PPG is .702 over 1,042 games compared to Eklund's .641 over just 594 games shows that Jokinen is a much better offensive player. Then, consider the fact that he put up those numbers for 1.75 times longer, and the fact that he did it playing with significantly worse players than Eklund, and you have a superior player in Jokinen. Eklund's defensive resume is a bit up for debate as seventies noted. Sources say he was a PKer, but he was never used very often on the actual PK. He was out for .125 PPGA per game, compared to Jokinen's .13 PPGA per game. And most would never mistake Olli Jokinen for a defensive stalwart, although as time has gone on he's become less of a floater and played better in his own zone.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 09:58 PM
  #91
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Keenan certainly had his weaknesses, but why do you say he hated the Euros?
Keenan hated many players who weren't North American "tough" (although he had some favourites that don't fit a pattern).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
My first pick, the last of the second round is:

D, Dan Hamhuis
I came very close to taking him in the MLD but didn't want to be a homer. I don't see him as being much worse than Hannan or Mitchell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Keenan is one of the most successful NHL coaches of all-time.
I feel that's like saying Michael Bay is one of the most successful directors of all-time.


Last edited by Hedberg: 10-29-2012 at 10:15 PM.
Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:12 PM
  #92
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,161
vCash: 500
Fort Saskatchewan selects D Mike McEwen


Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 10:38 PM
  #93
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,796
vCash: 500
We'll take Vaclav Prospal. He's one of the best offensive players left, but being a playmaking winger made him extra valuable.

On my phone, so can somebody PM the next in line...

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:05 PM
  #94
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Where does that leave us though, in terms of how good defensively we are to believe he was? You and I are just historians doing the best we can with the info we had. Keenan is one of the most successful NHL coaches of all-time.
Defensive play has multiple dimensions. As a small player, Eklund was probably much better in open ice than he was along the boards. He may have been defensively responsible and helped cover for Kerr in transition while still being less than optimal for other defensive situations.

So Eklund's overall defensive value would depend on his linemates, opponents, rink size, etc rather than being reduced to a single constant value.

Btw I think Dan Hamhuis is a terrific pick here. It's always hard to put active players in perspective but he's on track to be an ATD fixture.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:15 PM
  #95
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
I also came close to selecting Hamhuis in the MLD, but needed a more offensive player and a righty when it came down late in the draft...

Personally, I'm not sure he belongs down at this level anymore, but that burden will be on me to prove I suppose...

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:26 PM
  #96
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg View Post
I came very close to taking him in the MLD but didn't want to be a homer. I don't see him as being much worse than Hannan or Mitchell.
.
I don't think he's that far back, either. Give him a track record of a few more years and he's right there. Maybe not as elite defensively, but he's been a remarkably steady ES producer: 25 ESP/season as opposed to 18/19 for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Defensive play has multiple dimensions. As a small player, Eklund was probably much better in open ice than he was along the boards. He may have been defensively responsible and helped cover for Kerr in transition while still being less than optimal for other defensive situations.
Oh, I know, it's definitely not lost on me that he had to have some sort of acument to play with Kerr.

Regardless of this, we're not drafting 3rd/4th liners right now; we're trying to draft players for our scoring lines in most cases. If your player doesn't have the track record of scoring some points, you're behind the 8-ball to start with if you're comparing him to someone who does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I would not say that he is successful. He was aggressive and he is definitly not bad but he also one of those who couldn't stand the euros and clashed with basically every star he met. He had some success in his first 8-9 years but what happened after that. He was exposed, hard to work with even went so far as to trying (and succeeding) in sabotaging a franchise.
when you look at his overall resume, he's in the 20-30 slot among coaches all-time. That's successful.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:44 PM
  #97
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
It's a tale of two cities basically for Hamhuis vs. Mitchell and Hannan. He's better than young Mitchell and better than old Hannan. Old Hannan is slow and rather ineffective, thus his quick, silent but sure fade into mediocrity...lucky for him, he's around a lot of his own kind on that sinking ship we call Calgary...as someone that was a big fan of Hannan in San Jose, and I think I referred to him once in an article as "the league's best kept secret", I'm not sure we're in a spot anymore where Hannan would be considered better for his career than Hamhuis. And if there's some metric out there that says otherwise, then we gotta be about - at most - one more season of elite play from Hamhuis away from really surpassing him...but just from my own viewings and knowledge, I'm comfortable in saying Hamhuis has passed him.

As for Willie Mitchell, young Willie was a real gun-slinger as far as defensive defenseman go...a taste for blood...he'd chase that big hit around the rink quite a bit and find himself in some precarious situations to be sure...probably the reason why the Devils traded him straight up for a guy that exhibited more positional integrity but with the ability to make timely hits and clear the crease with authority. With maturity and good coaching, Mitchell has settled in to become one of the better shutdown defenders in the league...

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:51 PM
  #98
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
Round 2 comments:

Olli Jokinen: I agree that he's in the running for best offensive center in the draft. His value may drop a bit in the playoffs due to uncertainty, but in the regular season he could be the best.

Anatoli Semenov: 4th, 5th, 14th in the Soviet league in scoring, and nothing too special at the NHL level. I'm in a Kamensky-type situation here, trying to determine how much of each situation should be poured in the bowl in the recipe for the truth here.

Bill Carson: Love Carson. He's the wild card of the pre-expansion NHL centers. He might be the 2nd-best after Raleigh... he might even be THE best. It really depends how much one values his years in the senior league. I did a pretty good bio a couple years back; you might want to look for it.

Lee Fogolin, Sr.: Not a bad pick. But missed one guy who I think is clearly better. Also, see Frank Eddolls. Are these guys similar or what?

Daren Puppa: I don't know. I had him pretty low on my list. After reading the comments, maybe I shouldn't have. I haven't done enough fine-toothed-combing on the goalies to know for sure where I'd rank him in this draft.

Warren Godfrey: This is the guy. Now, awards recognition says he was nothing special, and that's fine. But just 24 defensemen had full-time NHL spots, and for 11 straight seasons (and parts of 5 more) he was one of them. That's like 11 straight seasons of being a #2/3 defenseman today (40th-80th overall or so). I think his GP total alone is evidence enough that he was a quality player and an elite MLD defenseman. Definitely a step up on Eddolls and Fogolin. Not an indictment on them; they're fine, but he probably should be on an MLD 3rd pairing. We may have defaulted to him over Lidster if you had given us the chance to.

Bud Poile: Based on offensive record alone, he's fairly underwhelming for a AAA scoring winger. he definitely belongs here, but I would have thought as a mid-round, 2nd line pick. It's that all-star team, I think it seduces people. And that's not to say it's meaningless, just that it means something intangible that might make up for some lack of offense, but how much? And is it a symptom that he did more than just score some points?

Al Dewsbury: See Lee Fogolin Sr. and Frank Eddolls. Offensive edition.

Tom Kurvers: I see him as a bit of an offensive specialist at this level. Maybe not a guy you'd bury on a 3rd pairing but someone you'd take a bit later. 21.0 minutes a game for 659 games for average teams (good thing I checked that last part out, because I thought his teams were terrible, guess not!). He could put up points, but they also came at a cost.

Frank Eddolls: Perhaps a slightly better Lee Fogolin, only because he got into an all-star game on merit, and he has that 5th in 1945 all-star voting.

Dan Hamhuis: A stud. I'd have loved to get him, but I guess we can't get every player we like. I thought we could steal him later, but I thought wrong. Enjoy.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:52 PM
  #99
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,634
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
We'll take Vaclav Prospal. He's one of the best offensive players left, but being a playmaking winger made him extra valuable.

On my phone, so can somebody PM the next in line...
Have to imagine he was one of the wingers seventies was referencing with the Sanderson pick. I looked at Prospal because he was a playmaking winger to pair with Jokinen, but it was just too much defensive liability for one line, so I went with the traditional winger in Sanderson to start my 2nd line.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 11:56 PM
  #100
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
And if there's some metric out there that says otherwise, then we gotta be about - at most - one more season of elite play from Hamhuis away from really surpassing him...but just from my own viewings and knowledge, I'm comfortable in saying Hamhuis has passed him.
Perhaps there is. Maybe we could look at who plays the most for more successful teams, takes harder matchups, and contributes to a more efficient penalty kill.

In the absence of that, though, my gut tells me Hamhuis is right there in Hannan territory, with one or maybe two seasons separating them. Keep in mind that with the number of players that have existed throughout history, it's feasible moving up a couple hundred spots could take 2 seasons.

seventieslord 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 08:52 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.