HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Mike Gillis Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-05-2013, 10:01 AM
  #201
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
I was not pointing out "strengths". I was pointing out things Grabner does better than Raymond. If it's hockey-related, it's relevant.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, a guy who's had his back broken threw more hits (including this season) than the other guy. Neither guy is going to be called a hard player to play against.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:46 AM
  #202
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
And whether MG likes it or not, this fan base will forever keep track of this trade. You have to wonder if it was worth the trouble.
LOL, yeah I am sure GMs of NHL teams sit around weighing this or that trade thinking "I wonder what HFBoards is going to think of this"..

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:19 AM
  #203
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Oh, without a doubt 2004 was terrific. He may have only had input on Schneider but I'll give him credit. After all he did take a leap of faith and take a chance on Edler. I would also mention Mike Brown in there who's at least a serviceable, tough 4th liner too.

But even in your post, you can see a disturbing trend. The problem really was that his drafting would get worse with each passing year. In 2005 he passed up the obvious Best Player Available and went with Bourdon (RIP) over Kopitar. Now Luc still may have turned into a good D-man so he and Raymond - a good pick - would have made for 2 NHL'ers.

In 2006 we have Grabner and Shirokov, who was a 'maybe' though we might never know. But again he passed on the BPA in the 1st round to take Grabs.

In 2007... well, you already know the story I'm sure. Yet another reach with the 1st rounder. Perron, Subban, Simmonds... they were all there for the taking.

So not only did his drafting get progressively worse, his drafting in the 1st round alone was problematic as he tended to avoid going with the consensus BPA and it ended up being one of the factors that cost him his job.
I'd suggest 4 drafts isn't really enough time to draw a clear 'trend' on Nonis' drafting. Every team has good and bad drafts and just because 2004 came first and 2007 last doesn't necessarily indicate his drafting judgement/scouts/system got worse. As an aside, 2007 was a pretty poor draft all around. White and Ellingtom were bad picks no doubt, even at the time, but it is still 1 draft out of 4.

I also agree Nonis tended to 'outthink' himself by bypassing on the more commonly regarded BPA but to call the results bad or blame our dearth of prospects on him is unfair. He was at least average in his 4 drafts, possibly slightly higher when you factor in the quality of our successes over those drafts.

CanaFan is online now  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:24 AM
  #204
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I'd suggest 4 drafts isn't really enough time to draw a clear 'trend' on Nonis' drafting. Every team has good and bad drafts and just because 2004 came first and 2007 last doesn't necessarily indicate his drafting judgement/scouts/system got worse. As an aside, 2007 was a pretty poor draft all around. White and Ellingtom were bad picks no doubt, even at the time, but it is still 1 draft out of 4.

I also agree Nonis tended to 'outthink' himself by bypassing on the more commonly regarded BPA but to call the results bad or blame our dearth of prospects on him is unfair. He was at least average in his 4 drafts, possibly slightly higher when you factor in the quality of our successes over those drafts.
2006 was a bad draft too. Getting Grabner is good, but he passed on other better players and then did nothing with the rest of the picks. 2005 was bad outside of Raymond. There was no excuse to pass on Kopitar given what we knew about our team then and given that Kopitar had inexplicably slipped to our pick.

It's hard to give him much credit for 2004, outside of letting the scouts make their 'reach' pick in Edler (which was a great decision), because he wasn't there to handle the scouting. That draft mostly belongs to Burke.

What we do know is that he was about to have another abysmal draft in 08 because his scouting staff identified Beach as the guy to pick, not Hodgson.

---

On the other side, Tanev and Lack can't be overlooked. They were signed to make up for the lack of picks in 2010 and have both proven to be at the very least 2nd round value (I would argue Tanev is worth a 1st).

The thing is, there are a lot more coals in the fire with Gillis. The team might be taking a long-term approach which is why we haven't seen a ton of guys make the NHL yet, but at least we haven't seen many busts yet. Outside of Nonis' NHLers, he picked a bunch of guys who weren't even good enough for the AHL.


Last edited by Tiranis: 03-05-2013 at 11:31 AM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:33 AM
  #205
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The problem with this comparison is that Nonis has 5 years post his departure for everyone to evaluate his picks. Gillis doesn't have that same benefit.

For me, without a doubt Gillis has been better. No question in my mind about it. But of course, Jensen and Corrado first have to make the big club. Then there's the FA signings of Lack and Tanev that blow Nonis's attempts out of the water.

Even though Gillis has essentially voided one of his own drafts (2010), I still take Jensen, Schroeder and Hodgson over anything Nonis has produced. This without even getting into the depth picks like Corrado, McNally, Price, Andersson, Tommernes, Cannata, Polasek, Blomstrand, Labate and even Rodin if he gets back on track from his injuries. Simply put, Gillis is a better talent evaluate. I have felt this from his very first draft.
But you're using the fact that none of these Gillis picks has clearly succeeded or busted to your advantage. Sure some of these prospects look good now, but so did Sergei Shirokov at the same point. I would put serious money down wagering that of your 'depth picks' above - excluding Corrado - none will make any serious impact in the NHL (play more than 1 season, play significant role). Every team in the NHL has a pool of depth prospects like this or better. The difference for Nonis is that he oversaw 4 drafts that yielded our #1 or #2 defenseman, our current #1 goalie, two solid borderline 2nd/high end 3rd line wingers, and a 30-goal scorer on another team. That doesn't even include Bourdon, who was tracking to almost certainly be a top 4 or higher dman.

I'm not advocating that Nonis was any sort of drafting genius, but he often gets incorrectly labelled as a horrible drafter on the basis of one draft and one pick in particular. Gillis, on the other hand, gets credit as an amazing drafter largely on the backs of players who aren't even in the NHL yet but fans project a near 100% success rate for.

CanaFan is online now  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:37 AM
  #206
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
But you're using the fact that none of these Gillis picks has clearly succeeded or busted to your advantage. Sure some of these prospects look good now, but so did Sergei Shirokov at the same point. I would put serious money down wagering that of your 'depth picks' above - excluding Corrado - none will make any serious impact in the NHL (play more than 1 season, play significant role). Every team in the NHL has a pool of depth prospects like this or better. The difference for Nonis is that he oversaw 4 drafts that yielded our #1 or #2 defenseman, our current #1 goalie, two solid borderline 2nd/high end 3rd line wingers, and a 30-goal scorer on another team. That doesn't even include Bourdon, who was tracking to almost certainly be a top 4 or higher dman.

I'm not advocating that Nonis was any sort of drafting genius, but he often gets incorrectly labelled as a horrible drafter on the basis of one draft and one pick in particular. Gillis, on the other hand, gets credit as an amazing drafter largely on the backs of players who aren't even in the NHL yet but fans project a near 100% success rate for.
It took 5+ years to get to the point where any of those guys became the players you describe. It has only been 4 years since the 09 draft. The team is also a lot better so you'll see less guys making it as fast as they could then.

More coals in the fire gives you a better chance of success. Nonis ended up with some hits but he also ended up with a whole lot of nothing out of the rest of his picks. No depth players, no call-ups, nothing.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:41 AM
  #207
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I'm not advocating that Nonis was any sort of drafting genius, but he often gets incorrectly labelled as a horrible drafter on the basis of one draft and one pick in particular. Gillis, on the other hand, gets credit as an amazing drafter largely on the backs of players who aren't even in the NHL yet but fans project a near 100% success rate for.
Two drafts. 2006 & 2007.

Even Nonis didn't think much of Grabner later on to put up a fight to get Burke to claim him off of waivers for free.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:41 AM
  #208
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
2006 was a bad draft too. Getting Grabner is good, but he passed on other better players and then did nothing with the rest of the picks. 2005 was bad outside of Raymond. There was no excuse to pass on Kopitar given what we knew about our team then and given that Kopitar had inexplicably slipped to our pick.

It's hard to give him much credit for 2004, outside of letting the scouts make their 'reach' pick in Edler (which was a great decision), because he wasn't there to handle the scouting. That draft mostly belongs to Burke.

What we do know is that he was about to have another abysmal draft in 08 because his scouting staff identified Beach as the guy to pick, not Hodgson.

---

On the other side, Tanev and Lack can't be overlooked. They were signed to make up for the lack of picks in 2010 and have both proven to be at the very least 2nd round value (I would argue Tanev is worth a 1st).

The thing is, there are a lot more coals in the fire with Gillis. The team might be taking a long-term approach which is why we haven't seen a ton of guys make the NHL yet, but at least we haven't seen many busts yet. Outside of Nonis' NHLers, he picked a bunch of guys who weren't even good enough for the AHL.
I'm typing on my phone so I'll keep this short. You don't evaluate drafts by how many good players you didn't take but on how many you did. Sure we passed on Giroux to take Grabner. And Gillis passed on Karlsson to take Hodgson. Are we really going to play this game? And to give Gillis 'credit' for 2008 but dismiss Nonis' role in the 2004 draft shows your bias pretty clearly. At least apply the same standards for both FFS. And keep hypothetical nonsense like 'Nonis would have drafted Beach instead of Hodgson' out of any discussion of drafting records. That is reaching to say the least. Finally I do give Gillis credit for Tanev and Lack - great job of scouting and recruiting. But neither is related to drafting in the slightest. Age, profile, and cost makes them vastly different than drafting a 17 year old kid.

CanaFan is online now  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:49 AM
  #209
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Even Giroux was ranked ahead of Grabner, if you want to go that far but there were also other guys who didn't pan out as well so I'm not going to expect him to make that pick.
Patrik Berglund or how about a guy with some vinegar like Nick Foligno.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:53 AM
  #210
Canadian Gold X3
It is what it is.
 
Canadian Gold X3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nanaimo B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,602
vCash: 500
Nonis drafted on a positional basis, not BPA.

Canadian Gold X3 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:18 PM
  #211
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
It took 5+ years to get to the point where any of those guys became the players you describe. It has only been 4 years since the 09 draft. The team is also a lot better so you'll see less guys making it as fast as they could then.

More coals in the fire gives you a better chance of success. Nonis ended up with some hits but he also ended up with a whole lot of nothing out of the rest of his picks. No depth players, no call-ups, nothing.

I agree that the gap makes it futile to try to accurately compare the two GM's drafting history. But that doesn't stop dozens of Gillis fan-boys from proclaiming he completely changed our drafting and restocked the cupboard of prospects that was impoverished by Nonis. Its naivety at best (and Nonis-bashing at worst) to suggest that a group of players that are either fair-to-poor at the AHL level (Rodin, Connauton, Polasek) or are still in their original junior leagues (Labate, McNally, Tommernes) are solid evidence that Gillis is an above average drafter. They may work out after all, but history shows that most if not all won't. You can give him credit for 'coals in the fire' if you want, but I'd suggest waiting until some of these turn into productive NHLers a la Edler, Schneider, Hansen, Grabner, and Raymond before passing judgement.

CanaFan is online now  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:24 PM
  #212
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Raymond usually provides over 1 assist for every goal. Grabner doesn't, he could put up 30 goals and still only bring 45 points to the team.

Cool stuff. I like how you've found a way to turn Raymond's lower goal scoring prowess into a positive. "Hey, he gets more than 1 assist for every goal. That's a definite plus!"

Of course Grabner scored significantly more goals (62 to 46) in his first 3 full seasons than Raymond has in 3 of the last 4 (i'll exclude his 2011-12 recovery year to keep it fair). So it is a bit 'easier' for Raymond to pull off the amazing trick of having a higher assist-to-goal ratio. Not sure that is actually worth anything, but at least it gives you something that Raymond wins on...

CanaFan is online now  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:26 PM
  #213
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Cool stuff. I like how you've found a way to turn Raymond's lower goal scoring prowess into a positive. "Hey, he gets more than 1 assist for every goal. That's a definite plus!"
Is actually relevant since we have already an abundance of 'shoot first' type of players (non-playmaking forwards).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:43 PM
  #214
Scott Hall
The Bad Guy
 
Scott Hall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Classless One View Post
Nonis drafted on a positional basis, not BPA.
That's one of the reasons why I didn't get the Bourdon pick. The Canucks had Kesler pencilled in as a 3rd line center, the Sedins on the second line and Morrison on the first. Surely Nonis had to have realized that he had about 2 or 3 years left on BMo before he would either decline or become a UFA.

At the time we also had a solid D core, at least that's what they would have us believe, with a young KB3, Tomas Mojzis, Brett Skinner and free agent signing Maxime Fortunus, who many believed had the wheels to be in the NHL. Looking back, aside from KB3, these guys didn't amount to much, but, especially Mojzis, there was a lot of hype around them for being great prospects. Our D core was Baumer (who actually put up 30+ points and led the D in scoring), Jovo, Ohlund, Salo, Allen, and a mish-mash of players for 6th spot, including 39 games from Bieksa.

We had Craig Darby, Josh Green, and Nathan Smith in our system as centers (2 older vets and a not so great 1st round draft pick). We had just traded RJ Umberger away in 2004, so he wasn't in our system either.

Point is, why didn't we draft a center?

Scott Hall is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:47 PM
  #215
Canadian Gold X3
It is what it is.
 
Canadian Gold X3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nanaimo B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hall View Post
That's one of the reasons why I didn't get the Bourdon pick. The Canucks had Kesler pencilled in as a 3rd line center, the Sedins on the second line and Morrison on the first. Surely Nonis had to have realized that he had about 2 or 3 years left on BMo before he would either decline or become a UFA.

At the time we also had a solid D core, at least that's what they would have us believe, with a young KB3, Tomas Mojzis, Brett Skinner and free agent signing Maxime Fortunus, who many believed had the wheels to be in the NHL. Looking back, aside from KB3, these guys didn't amount to much, but, especially Mojzis, there was a lot of hype around them for being great prospects. Our D core was Baumer (who actually put up 30+ points and led the D in scoring), Jovo, Ohlund, Salo, Allen, and a mish-mash of players for 6th spot, including 39 games from Bieksa.

We had Craig Darby, Josh Green, and Nathan Smith in our system as centers (2 older vets and a not so great 1st round draft pick). We had just traded RJ Umberger away in 2004, so he wasn't in our system either.

Point is, why didn't we draft a center?
I actually don't know, Kopitar would sure look good, here.

(assuming he developed the same way)

Canadian Gold X3 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:47 PM
  #216
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Is actually relevant since we have already an abundance of 'shoot first' type of players (non-playmaking forwards).

This isn't about whether we "need" a shoot-first or playmaking player, or at least it wasn't when I jumped into this conversation. It was about Raymond "outscoring" Grabner, which isn't entirely true (Assists yes, Goals no). Whether or not you feel we need Raymond more than Grabner is a totally different discussion.

*btw Raymond is hardly a "playmaking" forward. His tunnel-vision and penchance for skating the puck into oblivion are well known around these boards. Just because Grabner is worse doesn't turn Raymond magically into a playmaker.

CanaFan is online now  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:50 PM
  #217
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hall View Post
That's one of the reasons why I didn't get the Bourdon pick. The Canucks had Kesler pencilled in as a 3rd line center, the Sedins on the second line and Morrison on the first. Surely Nonis had to have realized that he had about 2 or 3 years left on BMo before he would either decline or become a UFA.
Who was our best center prospect in the pipeline at the time? Matt Butcher? egads!


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 03-05-2013 at 12:55 PM.
Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:14 PM
  #218
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Classless One View Post
Nonis drafted on a positional basis, not BPA.
I think he did as well. Not only that but he seemed to look at the current team and what was missing and drafted that position....not taking into account that years down the road when the player is ready the team needs will have changed.

Nonis did some nice things, some not so nice things but I really don't think he's a guy you hold up as being spectacular at drafting.

tantalum is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:30 PM
  #219
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, a guy who's had his back broken threw more hits (including this season) than the other guy. Neither guy is going to be called a hard player to play against.
Like I said, I never believed it was either/or between these two.

I think AV would have used him if he could get past the early season funk he has. He's got the crazy legs that AV loves.

Fat Tony is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:37 PM
  #220
Finkle is Einhorn
Registered User
 
Finkle is Einhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Classless One View Post
I actually don't know, Kopitar would sure look good, here.

(assuming he developed the same way)
Because he was from a crrrraaaaazzzzzy country.

Finkle is Einhorn is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:37 PM
  #221
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Classless One View Post
Nonis drafted on a positional basis, not BPA.
And even then, when he wanted a D-man he didn't take the consensus best one (M. Staal).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
I think he did as well. Not only that but he seemed to look at the current team and what was missing and drafted that position....not taking into account that years down the road when the player is ready the team needs will have changed.

Nonis did some nice things, some not so nice things but I really don't think he's a guy you hold up as being spectacular at drafting.
Exactly. Based on the 1st round alone I would take Gillis every time.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:42 PM
  #222
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
And even then, when he wanted a D-man he didn't take the consensus best one (M. Staal).
I think Bourdon was a good pick if he wanted a D-man. He was ranked highly by the ISS and showed a lot of promise. TSN thought Staal was better, but some thought Bourdon would be better. All in all, he could've done worse.

The problem is that Kopitar was a no-brainer. It was the equivalent of picking Ladislav Smid when Malkin is still on board. There were a lot of biased, dumb GMs that day and Nonis joined their ranks.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 01:57 PM
  #223
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
Like I said, I never believed it was either/or between these two.

I think AV would have used him if he could get past the early season funk he has. He's got the crazy legs that AV loves.
That's a big if though. As been said numerous times, it took being put on waivers and claimed by one of the worst teams in the league to shake some sense into Grabner - and even then it took 30+ games for him to get the hint.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 02:22 PM
  #224
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I'd suggest 4 drafts isn't really enough time to draw a clear 'trend' on Nonis' drafting. Every team has good and bad drafts and just because 2004 came first and 2007 last doesn't necessarily indicate his drafting judgement/scouts/system got worse. As an aside, 2007 was a pretty poor draft all around. White and Ellingtom were bad picks no doubt, even at the time, but it is still 1 draft out of 4.

I also agree Nonis tended to 'outthink' himself by bypassing on the more commonly regarded BPA but to call the results bad or blame our dearth of prospects on him is unfair. He was at least average in his 4 drafts, possibly slightly higher when you factor in the quality of our successes over those drafts.
After 2004 he sure didn't improve on the team's drafting. Even if it was a phenomenal haul and we consider it an anomaly, it's not like his follow-ups were anything to write home about either. He did nothing with most of the mid to late-round picks starting from 2005. Compare that to Gillis who we'll also give the responsibility for his first draft to, for the sake of fair comparison; yet in 2009 we already have 4 guys who've reached the AHL level (and 2 more next year) - a vast improvement compared to the year before.

You can also judge how bad a team's drafting is by seeing just how far off the mark they're missing decent players on the ones that didn't make the NHL. From 2005 onward, the majority of those draftees never even made it as AHL regulars - only 4/14 made it to that level. Out of the 2009 crop alone MG will already go 5-for-6 next season.

From the way he was missing BPA's in the 1st round it wasn't a good trend either.


Last edited by vanuck: 03-05-2013 at 02:27 PM.
vanuck is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 02:25 PM
  #225
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
I think Bourdon was a good pick if he wanted a D-man. He was ranked highly by the ISS and showed a lot of promise. TSN thought Staal was better, but some thought Bourdon would be better. All in all, he could've done worse.

The problem is that Kopitar was a no-brainer. It was the equivalent of picking Ladislav Smid when Malkin is still on board. There were a lot of biased, dumb GMs that day and Nonis joined their ranks.
I remember reading about some posters' concerns that they had about his hockey sense at the time, so I'm not sure. For the sake of argument we can still consider him an NHL'er with potential.

But yeah, it's all moot anyway when the bigger problem was missing the obvious faller in Kopitar.


Last edited by vanuck: 03-05-2013 at 02:40 PM.
vanuck is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:44 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.