we used 46th and 24th pick to get Korpikoski, how hard is it to understand? Just like Montoya cost us a 6th overall pick--we exchanged one asset--6th overall and got another asset in return--Montoya. Therefore the cost of Montoya was the 6th overall pick. How hard is it to understand?
So I think next year we shouldn't use our picks so it doesn't cost us anything.
You know?
Your logic is
Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 10-07-2004 at 02:49 PM.
How much stock does one put into the points piled up when going against High Schoolers? If your argument had any weight to it whatsoever, Billy Ryan would have been a first rounder.
If he had more size and more points than Chris Bourque then he might have been. And it is not me who is putting emphasis on stats, it wasn't me that drafted Wheeler 5th overall, it was an actual NHL team with real scouts.
I'm not so sure. Numbers do not necessarily cover everything that a scout looks for in a player. Yea, Wheeler beating up on High School kids really got him to the 5th overall. If he had half of his numbers, he would still have the same skillset, the same size, the same pro potential. Numbers dont mean everything.
obviously numbers don't mean everything, but they are more important than some are willing to admit.
They did not draft him based upon his stats in High School.
2 major factors were his size and his scoring potential. Take away those 2 and there is no way he would be drafted in the 1st round. His numbers weren't just good, they were extremely high 100 points in 30 games and you can bet that got attention of Gretzky and his cronies and they scouted him heavily.
if he can't score in juniors, what makes you think he will score in adult leagues?
I´d like to know why he hasn´t scored in juniors too... My guess is that TPS has allot of older players on their junior team and scoring all that much from a 3rd line isn´t all that easy.
I´d like to know why he hasn´t scored in juniors too... My guess is that TPS has allot of older players on their junior team and scoring all that much from a 3rd line isn´t all that easy.
I dont even think that is an issue. Talking about a players production two years prior to his draft year is nuts, IMO. Guys can put up lousy numbers because they just havent matured yet. All signs are with Korpikoski are that he was a late bloomer a lil before and during his draft year. I dont think scouts have any problems not looking some time past a players draft year. The point is how well is he doing now. Korps lit up the U-18 so that ended that.
I dont even think that is an issue. Talking about a players production two years prior to his draft year is nuts, IMO. Guys can put up lousy numbers because they just havent matured yet. All signs are with Korpikoski are that he was a late bloomer a lil before and during his draft year. I dont think scouts have any problems not looking some time past a players draft year. The point is how well is he doing now. Korps lit up the U-18 so that ended that.
2 years prior? I am talking about his draft year and the year before that. And I am not that excited about his Tournament performance because both of his linemates put up exactly the same stats. It would have been more convincing if his linemates put up much fewer points. I think originally Rangers were expecting to take Korpikoski in early 2nd round, but then all the hype started.
2 years prior? I am talking about his draft year and the year before that. And I am not that excited about his Tournament performance because both of his linemates put up exactly the same stats. It would have been more convincing if his linemates put up much fewer points. I think originally Rangers were expecting to take Korpikoski in early 2nd round, but then all the hype started.
I dont know. Any suggestions about draft strategy, you would have to be in the Ranger Organization to know. Although they did say they were taking him at 6 if Ladd and Montoya were gone on the show.
biggest problem with the Korpikoski deal is it seems Carolina gave up less to move up from 8 to 4 then we did going from 24 to 19... Bad job by Maloney/Sather... Ladd should have been the guy we targeted all along with no.6... Maloney knew the no.4 was in play, he knew Carolina would look to make a splash....but we just sat there...
We didn't have a 3rd to give, which is why we had to give up a 2nd to move up. Also, remember we got an 8th rounder (Paiement) back. Columbus wouldn't have given us an extra pick back, nor would Calgary if we didn't give them a 2nd (assuming we had a 3rd or even our own 4th to give them).
Rangers had Ladd/Montoya ranked 3/4 (or 4/3). Obviously, they felt the difference between the two wasn't worht trading up for, and felt confident that one of the two would slip to them. In contrast, the Rangers moved up to 19 becuase they had a chance to grab Korpikoski, a player ranked in their top 10. He certainly wouldn't be there at 24, and there is a big difference between him and those available at 24, enough that Maloney was willing to sacrifice a 2nd to get him. If a team can get two players they have rated in their top 10 in a draft and all they have to do is switch an 8th for (one of many) 2nd, then that's a good draft.
2 years prior? I am talking about his draft year and the year before that. And I am not that excited about his Tournament performance because both of his linemates put up exactly the same stats. It would have been more convincing if his linemates put up much fewer points. I think originally Rangers were expecting to take Korpikoski in early 2nd round, but then all the hype started.
The big thing that people saw in those tournaments wasn't just the stats, though. People expected Nokelainen and Tukonen to play well. The biggest surprise, according to what I read, was not just that this Korpikoski kid went out there and played well, but that he was actually the driving force of the line.
I for one am encouraged that he's playing with the TPS senior team. They're not some development team who have to play youngsters, so the fact that he's playing in the SM-Liiga means that he must have impressed the coaches.
I think people also have to understand that for a kid like him in that particular league a single digit goal total is still a very successful year. I think we forget sometimes that the game has some differences over there.
Now if he went to the WHL and scored 7 goals, than yes we would have reason to concerned.
The big thing that people saw in those tournaments wasn't just the stats, though. People expected Nokelainen and Tukonen to play well. The biggest surprise, according to what I read, was not just that this Korpikoski kid went out there and played well, but that he was actually the driving force of the line.
Yes I heard that too, but I don't think it is anything official, it sounds more like hype or just someone's opinion. Sure there were probably times where he looked like the best player on that line, but it wasn't like he was the best player on every shift.
Quote:
I for one am encouraged that he's playing with the TPS senior team. They're not some development team who have to play youngsters, so the fact that he's playing in the SM-Liiga means that he must have impressed the coaches.
Yes, I don't doubt that he is a very solid player overall, I only doubt if he was worth a 24th pick+46th pick and I have doubts about his scoring/offensive ability. Maybe best thing for him would have been to come over and play in CHL where he could have developed his scoring much quicker.
Hell No, how dare he lose a game? Anyway he will be snubbed in favor of the new golden boy, Montoya.
have you seen montoya or lundqvist play? the reason i ask is i have only seen montoya play and i have to say he is pretty impressive. I don't know what guy will end up being better but montoya looks to me like he is could be a a #1 goaltender in the nhl. since you must have seen both guys play perhaps you can give us a scouting report?
have you seen montoya or lundqvist play? the reason i ask is i have only seen montoya play and i have to say he is pretty impressive. I don't know what guy will end up being better but montoya looks to me like he is could be a a #1 goaltender in the nhl. since you must have seen both guys play perhaps you can give us a scouting report?
Actually I did see Lundqvist play once when they televised a WC game on ESPN. But he wasn't getting too many difficult shots because Swedish defense was very good, so basically there wasn't much to go on. I only saw a few clips of Montoya, yes he obviously looks good, but I don't think College competition is anywhere as good as Swedish Elite league. And the point is not who will be better, but why draft another goalie in the top 10 when we already have 2 potentially great goalies. Sure one is injured, but he is still very young and seems to be recovering. 29 other teams would drool over Lundqvist, but for us he is not good enough, we need a backup plan of a backup plan. I could understand them spending the late 1st ronder on Corey Schneider or getting Shantz or Peters with one of our 2nd rounders, but to pick another goalie in top 10 is just ridiculous.
Actually I did see Lundqvist play once when they televised a WC game on ESPN. But he wasn't getting too many difficult shots because Swedish defense was very good, so basically there wasn't much to go on. I only saw a few clips of Montoya, yes he obviously looks good, but I don't think College competition is anywhere as good as Swedish Elite league. And the point is not who will be better, but why draft another goalie in the top 10 when we already have 2 potentially great goalies. Sure one is injured, but he is still very young and seems to be recovering. 29 other teams would drool over Lundqvist, but for us he is not good enough, we need a backup plan of a backup plan. I could understand them spending the late 1st ronder on Corey Schneider or getting Shantz or Peters with one of our 2nd rounders, but to pick another goalie in top 10 is just ridiculous.
um lundqist didn't play for team sweden during the world cup
i'm sure leafs fans would love to know what your thoughts are on tellqvist.
i don't think college hockey competition is anywhere as good as the SEL but i do think montoya playing on a north american ice surface and playing so well in the wjc might slid him ahead of lundqist. as i admited before i have not seen lundqist play so i am totally going on how impressive montoya has looked.
the rangers drafted the kid they had highest on there board so i really can't complain about the pick. montoya should be a #1 nhl goalie and having depth at a postion is something all of us can be happy with.
i'm sure leafs fans would love to know what your thoughts are on tellqvist.
i don't think college hockey competition is anywhere as good as the SEL but i do think montoya playing on a north american ice surface and playing so well in the wjc might slid him ahead of lundqist. as i admited before i have not seen lundqist play so i am totally going on how impressive montoya has looked.
the rangers drafted the kid they had highest on there board so i really can't complain about the pick. montoya should be a #1 nhl goalie and having depth at a postion is something all of us can be happy with.
Actually I did see Lundqvist play once when they televised a WC game on ESPN. But he wasn't getting too many difficult shots because Swedish defense was very good, so basically there wasn't much to go on. I only saw a few clips of Montoya, yes he obviously looks good, but I don't think College competition is anywhere as good as Swedish Elite league. And the point is not who will be better, but why draft another goalie in the top 10 when we already have 2 potentially great goalies. Sure one is injured, but he is still very young and seems to be recovering. 29 other teams would drool over Lundqvist, but for us he is not good enough, we need a backup plan of a backup plan. I could understand them spending the late 1st ronder on Corey Schneider or getting Shantz or Peters with one of our 2nd rounders, but to pick another goalie in top 10 is just ridiculous.
I have to agree with the Rangers right now. I didn't see any other player at that six spot {except maybe Olesz and there were red flags on him} that was on the same level as Montoya.
Don't get me wrong, Lundqvist is a great prospect and could be the Rangers goalie of the future. But the key word there is "Could". Personally I take the guy who has much higher odds to be a cornerstone player {Even if i might already have another in that position} over a guy with much lower odds who happens to play another position.
The goalies you mentioned are solid prospects, but Montoya could be something really special.
I have to agree with the Rangers right now. I didn't see any other player at that six spot {except maybe Olesz and there were red flags on him} that was on the same level as Montoya.
Don't get me wrong, Lundqvist is a great prospect and could be the Rangers goalie of the future. But the key word there is "Could". Personally I take the guy who has much higher odds to be a cornerstone player {Even if i might already have another in that position} over a guy with much lower odds who happens to play another position.
The goalies you mentioned are solid prospects, but Montoya could be something really special.
I disagree I guess I think we had many options--could have taken Olesz or Tukonen (since he had chemistry with Korpikoski); could have traded up to get Barker or Ladd; could have traded down to get a number of players (Stafford, Schwarz, Thelen, Nokelainen, etc.) plus an additional 2nd rounder.
Montoya is not a sure thing also, there is also some chance he will not become a great goalie on NHL level, there is also a chance he can get a serious injury.
