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

Who is the Canucks #4 prospect?

View Poll Results: Who is the Canucks #4 prospect?
Brendan Gaunce 53 22.18%
Nicklas Jensen 134 56.07%
Eddie Lack 29 12.13%
Joacim Ericsson 1 0.42%
Jordan Schroeder 16 6.69%
Alexandre Mallet 1 0.42%
Ben Hutton 0 0%
Cold Cassels 2 0.84%
Ludwig Blomstrand 0 0%
Darren Archibald 0 0%
Joseph LaBate 0 0%
Joe Cannata 1 0.42%
Henrik Tommernes 1 0.42%
Jordan Subban 1 0.42%
Other (specify below) 0 0%
Voters: 239. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2013, 12:17 PM
  #76
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
It's why Baertschi is currently a much more valuable prospect than Monahan for the Flames.
Clearly we have very differing opinions of prospect value. Monahan > Baertschi and it's not even close.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:18 PM
  #77
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
I am questioning ranking Shinkaruk over Lack on the basis of "shiny and new", not Jensen. Sorry if that is not clear.
My mistake then, I might have confused your post with another one critiquing posters for not supporting Jensen. I would still put Shinkaruk over Lack based on projected player value - scoring winger vs goalie - but I don't take issue with Lack's body of work so it is a reasonable debate to have.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:26 PM
  #78
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Facepalm at this entire thread. If Schroeder is still a prospect, he or Horvat is #1 simply by virtue of his having shown he can hang in the NHL. Ranking Hunter Shinkaruk higher when he weighs 173 pounds and is probably 2 years away if he ever even makes it to the show higher is a hilarious example of "OOOOOH EXCITING! SHINY NEW THINGS!"

Sorry, but merely "hanging in the NHL" doesn't do much to sway me in favour of a prospect. Plenty of prospects can "play" at the NHL level, but few can make an actual impact. I've yet to see Schroeder make an impact, and until he does he isn't that much ahead of Shinkaruk in terms of being "proven". Same with Corrado. I think the world of him as a prospect, but people taking his 7 NHL games and calling him "proven" is ridiculous. Given the up and down nature of players, it takes a full season to say they are proven NHLers and even then, you can't just count the number of games but must evaluate their level of positive contributions to the team. Schroeder showed he can survive at the NHL level, but not that he can contribute at a meaningful level. I'm pretty confident that if he simply maintained his currrent play over the rest of his career, he wouldn't be an everyday NHLer. Now before you jump on me, I'm not saying he won't improve, but just saying that his play today isn't the be all end all of this debate.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:28 PM
  #79
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Clearly we have very differing opinions of prospect value. Monahan > Baertschi and it's not even close.
Clearly we do. Baertschi has reached a point in his development where the range of possible outcomes has narrowed significantly. He will not be a bust, and at this point IMO his downside is 2nd line wing- his upside is as a very good first liner. Monahan has a much broader range of possible outcomes and not much higher upside. Certainty is worth considerably more in ranking a prospect than optimistic hopes.

The only basis, imo, for ranking Monahan as close in value as a prospect to Baertschi is the relative value of centres and wingers.

But here's another comparison for you: Ty Rattie vs. Jaden Schwartz. Better yet, Jonas Brodin vs. Ryan Murray.

ARSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:28 PM
  #80
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Fair enough. At this point in time, I don't see Shinkaruk having the physical attributes to be an effective NHL player. That could most definitely change as he matures. Lack on the other hand will most likely be our backup as soon next season with starter potential down the road. I guess I value that more.
Shinkaruk is the same size as Jordan Eberle and Patrick Kane and has a very similar skill set to both (I'd argue he's a better skater than Eberle at the same age).

I'm not hung up on size though.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:31 PM
  #81
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Clearly we do. Baertschi has reached a point in his development where the range of possible outcomes has narrowed significantly. He will not be a bust, and at this point IMO his downside is 2nd line wing- his upside is as a very good first liner. Monahan has a much broader range of possible outcomes and not much higher upside. Certainty is worth considerably more in ranking a prospect than optimistic hopes.

The only basis, imo, for ranking Monahan as close in value as a prospect to Baertschi is the relative value of centres and wingers.
This helps me understand your point, but I still don't agree with it.

Sven still has bust potential, he's not a lock to be anything at this point, let alone a lock to be a 2nd liner at worst.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:35 PM
  #82
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 500
^Eh, watching him play, he's as much a lock as a prospect can be to get to that level, but you're free to take a different view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Schroeder showed he can survive at the NHL level, but not that he can contribute at a meaningful level. I'm pretty confident that if he simply maintained his currrent play over the rest of his career, he wouldn't be an everyday NHLer. Now before you jump on me, I'm not saying he won't improve, but just saying that his play today isn't the be all end all of this debate.
He contributes at a meaningful level if he plays 10+ minutes a night and isn't a negative for his team. There were times last season where his line carried the team. Given that it was his rookie season, he played well. His game is more mature than Kassian's. Consequently, even at his current level of play, I believe he'd be a fringe NHL player - a Kyle Wellwood kind of guy.

As you say, the upside goes from there, but there's no real downside risk (in the context of a conversation about prospects). Shinkaruk's downside risk is he never puts on the sweater, and it's not that remote a risk.

ARSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:43 PM
  #83
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
That in itself is a strawman argument. I have said Eddie Lack has proved himself to be an elite goaltender at a higher level than Shinkaruk has. I have said, besides his elite puck skills, Shinkaruk's size and weight at his point do not transfer well to the NHL level. That could change if he puts on more weight/height, but at this point, Lack is the better bet (even with his injury scare).
Lack also turns 26 partway through next season. I'm not even sure we should be calling a guy who'd barely be eligible for the Calder trophy a prospect at this point.

If you're not going to allow for the 7 year age difference between Lack and the newly drafted guys then you're always going to default to the older guy who is more polished, which doesn't make a ton of sense when you're talking about future potential.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:44 PM
  #84
TheCerebral1
Hockey Heaven
 
TheCerebral1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 539
vCash: 500
Jensen over Gaunce slightly.

TheCerebral1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:45 PM
  #85
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
^Eh, watching him play, he's as much a lock as a prospect can be to get to that level, but you're free to take a different view.

He contributes at a meaningful level if he plays 10+ minutes a night and isn't a negative for his team. There were times last season where his line carried the team. Given that it was his rookie season, he played well. His game is more mature than Kassian's. Consequently, even at his current level of play, I believe he'd be a fringe NHL player - a Kyle Wellwood kind of guy.

As you say, the upside goes from there, but there's no real downside risk (in the context of a conversation about prospects). Shinkaruk's downside risk is he never puts on the sweater, and it's not that remote a risk.

Schroeder's downside is that he never improves and is out of the league once people realize he isn't going to contribute meaningful offense for a 5'9 centre. Again, he is far from *proven*. There are countless AHLers who can "play" limited minutes at the NHL if you don't expect them to contribute any offense, including many who are bigger and play a more physical, grinding style than Schroeder. The reason Schroeder received 31 games last year - IMO - is the expectation that he will develop into a more productive player than he is now, not so much because of his play today. Ditto for Kassian. If either player were 32 years old instead of 22 they almost certainly aren't in the NHL, period. Sure Shinkaruk hasn't shown he can even play in the NHL at Schroeder's limited level, so that must be factored in. But I personally don't need to with 100% certainty that prospects will play someday to see their value. Prior to last season, Nail Yakupov had never played an NHL game either, did he have less value than the more proven MSP? According to your line of thinking, he did. Most people would disagree and hindsight would validate this. The same scenario exists for Shinkaruk and Schroeder, though the percentages are obviously different since Shinkaruk doesn't have the pedigree of Yakupov but Schroeder isn't as proven as MSP. That's why these things are debatable and not nearly as black & white as you are trying to make them out.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:00 PM
  #86
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
The reason Schroeder received 31 games last year - IMO - is the expectation that he will develop into a more productive player than he is now, not so much because of his play today.
Oh really? Have we forgotten last season so quickly? Who, pray tell, would you have had playing on the team instead of Schroeder last year? It would be somewhat more reasonable to say the reason he played 31 games was because Kesler was hurt and Malhotra out of the lineup, but even that would be revisionist; the prevailing view around here was that even at his present level of development, Schroeder brought more to the table than Andrew Ebbett.

There was basically no way he wasn't going to play those games, and had he not been hurt he would've played more because in regards to Ebbett, the prevailing view was absolutely right.

Quote:
But I personally don't need to with 100% certainty that prospects will play someday to see their value. Prior to last season, Nail Yakupov had never played an NHL game either, did he have less value than the more proven MSP? According to your line of thinking, he did.
Don't straw man me. These types of comparisons are useless. A first overall pick is a first overall pick precisely because there is a large degree of certainty that he will be a productive NHL player. There is no such thing as 100% certainty because Patrick Stefan, which is why your statement that you don't need it isn't terribly helpful.

The degree of certainty of success is, obviously, an element of prospect evaluation. No one would disagree on that. The point of disagreement here appears to be how much emphasis to put on it. I put a higher emphasis than some of you, and I would venture that at least a portion of that is borne of optimism. Everyone wants to evaluate their own prospects on the basis of their ceiling. Reality dictates that there's only a decent chance that a small percentage of your prospects will actually approach that ceiling.

ARSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:08 PM
  #87
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Clearly we do. Baertschi has reached a point in his development where the range of possible outcomes has narrowed significantly. He will not be a bust, and at this point IMO his downside is 2nd line wing- his upside is as a very good first liner. Monahan has a much broader range of possible outcomes and not much higher upside. Certainty is worth considerably more in ranking a prospect than optimistic hopes.

The only basis, imo, for ranking Monahan as close in value as a prospect to Baertschi is the relative value of centres and wingers.

But here's another comparison for you: Ty Rattie vs. Jaden Schwartz. Better yet, Jonas Brodin vs. Ryan Murray.
There's no reason to believe that a guy with major concussion and injury issues at age 20 has any less of a bust potential than Sean Monahan. A guy who going by NHL equivalencies, might even be able to put together a 40+ point season next year. A guy like Monahan gets drafted as high as he did for a reason.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:08 PM
  #88
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,740
vCash: 500
Might as well close it up and start #5. This one is obvious.

keslerburrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:09 PM
  #89
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Shinkaruk is the same size as Jordan Eberle and Patrick Kane and has a very similar skill set to both (I'd argue he's a better skater than Eberle at the same age).

I'm not hung up on size though.
I am not that hung up on it and have acknowledged that Shinkaruk can still put on more size. At this point though, I would vote Lack over him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Lack also turns 26 partway through next season. I'm not even sure we should be calling a guy who'd barely be eligible for the Calder trophy a prospect at this point.

If you're not going to allow for the 7 year age difference between Lack and the newly drafted guys then you're always going to default to the older guy who is more polished, which doesn't make a ton of sense when you're talking about future potential.
Yes, I do concede that age is a big factor here. But Lack is still rated as a prospect and I argue that at this point, he is a better prospect.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:11 PM
  #90
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Yes, I do concede that age is a big factor here. But Lack is still rated as a prospect and I argue that at this point, he is a better prospect.
For guys with Lack's pedigree and performance level relative to their age there's a lot more variance in terms of their actual NHL output than there is for guys like Shinkaruk. History has shown that Shinkaruk would be the safer pick contrary to your opinion.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:11 PM
  #91
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Lack also turns 26 partway through next season. I'm not even sure we should be calling a guy who'd barely be eligible for the Calder trophy a prospect at this point.

If you're not going to allow for the 7 year age difference between Lack and the newly drafted guys then you're always going to default to the older guy who is more polished, which doesn't make a ton of sense when you're talking about future potential.
HF's cutoff for player age is 24, so by that Lack is no longer considered a prospect.

StrictlyCommercial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:20 PM
  #92
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
For guys with Lack's pedigree and performance level relative to their age there's a lot more variance in terms of their actual NHL output than there is for guys like Shinkaruk. History has shown that Shinkaruk would be the safer pick contrary to your opinion.
I guess the issue here is (like every year) is what factors each of us use to rank the prospect. Some put more stock into the ceiling of the player while some put more stock into how NHL ready they are. For me, it is more to the latter as a lot of prospects with high ceilings bust. To me, Lack has starter potential (high ceiling) and he is a lot closer to realizing it and therefore, gets ranked higher.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:24 PM
  #93
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
I guess the issue here is (like every year) is what factors each of us use to rank the prospect. Some put more stock into the ceiling of the player while some put more stock into how NHL ready they are. For me, it is more to the latter as a lot of prospects with high ceilings bust. To me, Lack has starter potential (high ceiling) and he is a lot closer to realizing it and therefore, gets ranked higher.
But as I said, there's actually a higher chance that Lack turns out to be a bust or a mediocre NHL backup, than that Shinkaruk becomes something less than a 40 point forward.

We even had one of those backups on our team: Jason Labarbera. Posted better stats at the same age as Lack and was considered the best AHL goalie.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:29 PM
  #94
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Oh really? Have we forgotten last season so quickly? Who, pray tell, would you have had playing on the team instead of Schroeder last year? It would be somewhat more reasonable to say the reason he played 31 games was because Kesler was hurt and Malhotra out of the lineup, but even that would be revisionist; the prevailing view around here was that even at his present level of development, Schroeder brought more to the table than Andrew Ebbett.

There was basically no way he wasn't going to play those games, and had he not been hurt he would've played more because in regards to Ebbett, the prevailing view was absolutely right.
And yet Ebett played exactly 3 fewer games than Schroeder, many of them in the same slot when JS was returned to Chicago. I agree JS was the better player, yet it wasn't enough to keep him from getting demoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Don't straw man me. These types of comparisons are useless. A first overall pick is a first overall pick precisely because there is a large degree of certainty that he will be a productive NHL player. There is no such thing as 100% certainty because Patrick Stefan, which is why your statement that you don't need it isn't terribly helpful.
LOL at 'strawman argument'. Not even close. Your entire point is that Player A (more developed, played in NHL) is a more valuable prospect than Player B (less developed, hasn't played in NHL). You didn't make your case based on the meritts of Player A's play or on any deficiencies with Player B, you made it based on a simple tenet that Proven > Not proven. To disprove this point, I identified a relevant and fairly obvious case where Proven < Not proven. I could point out dozens more, not even using first overall picks. Your tenet that Player A > Player B has been disproven. That isn't a strawman argument. Now if you want to actually debate the actual players - JS vs Shinkaruk - then I will happily leave the Yakupov-MSP example behing, but it was certainly relevant to the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
The degree of certainty of success is, obviously, an element of prospect evaluation. No one would disagree on that. The point of disagreement here appears to be how much emphasis to put on it. I put a higher emphasis than some of you, and I would venture that at least a portion of that is borne of optimism. Everyone wants to evaluate their own prospects on the basis of their ceiling. Reality dictates that there's only a decent chance that a small percentage of your prospects will actually approach that ceiling.
I agree wholeheartedly that the discussion should be about degree of certainty of success and that it is much more nuanced than simply "JS has played in NHL and HS has not". I am certainly willing to concede some points to JS for making it as far as he has, though how *far* he has made it clearly differs between us. The other part of the discussion needs to be how high Shinkaruk's upside is and whether or not that compensates for his earlier stage of development. It is certainly difficult when comparing players when one is 18 and the other is 22, but when faced with that task it is reasonable to raise your expectations for the more developed player. Shinkaruk can't play in any league but the CHL, and at that level he has been a dominant offensive player. JS has not had a dominant offensive season at any point in his 3 years in the AHL nor has he shown much offensively at the NHL level. So it comes down to projecting a player who hasn't played at as high a level, but has succeeded wildly at his current level, versus a player who has played at a higher level but done very little at that level. I prefer to have the lottery ticket over the loonie in my pocket I guess.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:29 PM
  #95
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
Might as well close it up and start #5. This one is obvious.
Well the previous 3 polls had 227, 200, and 277 votes. This one is only at 160. I'm assuming they are waiting for more responses.

I would have to start being a landslide in any direction to usurp Jensen from 4th though, so I agree.

Let's move on to #5, because IMO, this is where the debates get real deep.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:30 PM
  #96
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
But as I said, there's actually a higher chance that Lack turns out to be a bust or a mediocre NHL backup, than that Shinkaruk becomes something less than a 40 point forward.

We even had one of those backups on our team: Jason Labarbera. Posted better stats at the same age as Lack and was considered the best AHL goalie.
Can I see where you are getting these numbers from? Not that I doubt you, but I would like to see how these get tracked.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:35 PM
  #97
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
You didn't make your case based on the meritts of Player A's play or on any deficiencies with Player B, you made it based on a simple tenet that Proven > Not proven. To disprove this point, I identified a relevant and fairly obvious case where Proven < Not proven. I could point out dozens more, not even using first overall picks. Your tenet that Player A > Player B has been disproven. That isn't a strawman argument
Yes it is a straw man argument because I never argued that "proven > not proven". My whole point - and you quoted it - is that degree of success at the NHL is an important element in evaluating a prospect. Further, I am arguing that it is being underrated by some here, and that a prospect's pie-in-the-sky ceiling of what he might become in some imagined future world is being overrated. Regardless, by purporting to disprove an argument I never made, you have committed a straw man, quintessentially. Clear enough?

Even with that said, you simply cannot come up with an extreme example like "first overall pick with no NHL games is a better prospect than a guy who's had 3 years in the NHL and hasn't been able to stick" and use it as a comparable. For me, the closer comparable is Brodin vs Murray (or closer still, Brodin vs. one of the top defensemen taken in this draft). Either way, I take Brodin. But regardless of what analogy you want to use, it's debatable how close it is to a Schroder / Hunter situation and it certainly can't PROVE anything. Acting like you've just come up with some sort of hockey equivalent of a modal logic proof is absurd.

I feel like we're just going to have to disagree on this whole issue, but I maintain that the weighting of attributes that's being undertaken in this poll is skewed as a result of rose-coloured glasses. I'd rather have that dollar in my pocket - there's a reason they call the lottery the "idiot tax".

ARSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 01:59 PM
  #98
701
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver & OK Falls
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,837
vCash: 500
European castles had a reputation for being very chilly, but for the love of god, I don't think Andrew Cassels named his kid "Cold."

Could the OP please correct the spelling of Cole? Or else Cassels truly does need a blanket.

701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 02:02 PM
  #99
Love
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,217
vCash: 500
I voted Gaunce. I've never been that high on Jensen.


As for those asking why Shinkaruk is higher than Jensen: Have you compared their CHL careers? Because if you have you would know that they're not even remotely close. Shinkaruk dominated while Jensen was a complimentary offensive player.

And why are some people putting so much weight into how close a prospect is to the NHL? Having Horvat and Shink high has nothing to do with them being "shiny new toys" but everything to do with their ceilings.

A prospects value cant come from how NHL ready they are or else Corrado would be considered a better prospect than say, Darnell Nurse.

Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 02:08 PM
  #100
Royal Canuck
HF's Bounty Hunter
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 50
Jensen.

__________________

Twitter |HFBoards Contact | Blog
Xbox Live Gamertag: "CxC Canuck"
"You're never a loser until you quit trying. " - Mike Ditka
Royal Canuck is offline   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 02:53 AM.

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.