HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Washington Capitals
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospect Depth Chart Question

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2003, 06:31 AM
  #1
DJ Spinoza
Registered User
 
DJ Spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 12,852
vCash: 500
Prospect Depth Chart Question

Hello everyone..

I know you've all been pestered with this one before, but I am looking for old information about the three amigos the Pens got in the Jagr deal. Someone I am debating with on another board claims that it was common knowledge that all three (Sivek, Beech, Lupaschuk obviously) had fallen outside of the Caps top ten in their depth chart. I know this can't be true, because at that point, none of Semin, Fehr, or Oullett were part of the Caps organization.

Were they really all three outside of the top 10 back then?

DJ Spinoza is offline  
Old
12-16-2003, 06:54 AM
  #2
The Pucks
Registered User
 
The Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrKnowNothing
Hello everyone..

I know you've all been pestered with this one before, but I am looking for old information about the three amigos the Pens got in the Jagr deal. Someone I am debating with on another board claims that it was common knowledge that all three (Sivek, Beech, Lupaschuk obviously) had fallen outside of the Caps top ten in their depth chart. I know this can't be true, because at that point, none of Semin, Fehr, or Oullett were part of the Caps organization.

Were they really all three outside of the top 10 back then?
No.

The Pucks is offline  
Old
12-16-2003, 07:11 AM
  #3
Marshall
The OMalley Sellouts
 
Marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Old Town Alexandria
Posts: 11,935
vCash: 50
They were all very much in the top 10. Those fans that didn't like the trade generally disliked it for one of two reasons:

A. Didn't want another 'soft' player
B. Thought the Caps gave up too much youth in a deal that was a salary dump for the Penguins


Last edited by Marshall: 12-16-2003 at 07:26 AM.
Marshall is offline  
Old
12-16-2003, 08:39 AM
  #4
DJ Spinoza
Registered User
 
DJ Spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 12,852
vCash: 500
Thanks guys.

I have been saying that really the only Capital prospect back then who could be put above them would be Yonkman. Really, no one else comes to mind as being around in the system back then.

The three guys were some of the highest picks in a while, and I couldn't see how all three would not be in the top ten. Maybe one, but I don't think there were 10 players all with more potential than those three.

Again, thanks for the help.

DJ Spinoza is offline  
Old
12-16-2003, 10:56 AM
  #5
DaleHunter
Registered User
 
DaleHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 588
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to DaleHunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrKnowNothing
Thanks guys.

I have been saying that really the only Capital prospect back then who could be put above them would be Yonkman. Really, no one else comes to mind as being around in the system back then.

The three guys were some of the highest picks in a while, and I couldn't see how all three would not be in the top ten. Maybe one, but I don't think there were 10 players all with more potential than those three.

Again, thanks for the help.
Beech and Sivek were #1 and #2, respectively. Lupaschuk was in the top 7 I'd say... under Yonkman and debateably under Cutta.

DaleHunter is offline  
Old
12-16-2003, 03:27 PM
  #6
I_r_1337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleHunter
Beech and Sivek were #1 and #2, respectively. Lupaschuk was in the top 7 I'd say... under Yonkman and debateably under Cutta.
My personal rankings at the time has Sivek over beech due to the fact I didn't see big time point potential in Beech. I saw lots of assist but very little will, motivation or even the right shot to score goals. Too quick to give up on his own efforts and make a pass instead of shooting the puck. With Sivek I saw a guy who had all the passing tools Beech did and a willingness to try and score the goals and a shot to do it as well. Personally I never saw anything in Lupa nor do I see a whole lot now. I think he could be a #4 or 5 guy still but I honestly saw more in Paetsch than I ever did in Lupa. That's why I was so excited over the Jagr trade.. I was sad about losing Sivek but as far as Beech and Lupa go I wasn't hurt. All 3 of them were for sure in the top 10 though. No question there.

I_r_1337 is offline  
Old
12-17-2003, 10:30 AM
  #7
DaleHunter
Registered User
 
DaleHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 588
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to DaleHunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_r_1337
My personal rankings at the time has Sivek over beech due to the fact I didn't see big time point potential in Beech. I saw lots of assist but very little will, motivation or even the right shot to score goals. Too quick to give up on his own efforts and make a pass instead of shooting the puck. With Sivek I saw a guy who had all the passing tools Beech did and a willingness to try and score the goals and a shot to do it as well. Personally I never saw anything in Lupa nor do I see a whole lot now. I think he could be a #4 or 5 guy still but I honestly saw more in Paetsch than I ever did in Lupa. That's why I was so excited over the Jagr trade.. I was sad about losing Sivek but as far as Beech and Lupa go I wasn't hurt. All 3 of them were for sure in the top 10 though. No question there.
I liked Lupaschuk because he was a fiesty defenseman with some real nice offensive skills and PP capability. I always thought he was one of those guys that while he didn't have the blue chip hype and potential, he was the type that would just keep working his ass off until he made it... then he'd work harder. Unfortunately, it looks like he's reached a plateau.

DaleHunter is offline  
Old
12-20-2003, 02:29 PM
  #8
DJ Spinoza
Registered User
 
DJ Spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 12,852
vCash: 500
I hate to bump this up guys, but I am still in this debate for some reason.

Here's a link to an old Post article. (sorry it's from tripod though...)

http://members.tripod.com/~mscapsfan/jagr0701.html

Here's a quote from the article:

Quote:
The Capitals did not part with a single player on their roster – or even one of their top minor league prospects – in acquiring the seven-time all-star. Instead, they gave up a trio of 1999 draft picks – forwards Kris Beech and Michal Sivek and defenseman Ross Lupaschuk – along with cash and future considerations for Jagr and defenseman Frantisek Kucera.
Now, it's so easy to see what the quote means, but people at this other forum seem to be struggling, so I'd like your help again guys.

Of course Beech, Sivek, and Lupaschuk wouldn't have been considered the best minor league prospects because they were not making them minor league players. If you're not a minor league player and never have played a minor league game, it sure is hard to be a minor league prospects.

They were all in Junior hockey at the time, meaning that technically they were Junior hockey prospects.

This seems to be just a technicality used by the Post writer to make the trade sound much better than it was (you have to admit that getting at that time the best player in the world for three unproven prospects was a good trade, didn't turn out so well though).

It seems pretty open and shut here. They were among the best prospects in the entire system, as you guys have said. I've even quoted stats from hockeydb showing that there weren't any other guys you could consider better than Beech or Sivek at the time, and not many put up 65 points as a defensemen like Lupaschuk did in Red Deer a few years ago.

So could you please explain and back me up that they couldn't have been minor league prospects but were rather Junior league prospects (I've linked this thread over there, I'll pass on a link of the thread about Beech if you really want to read it, just ask me).

Thanks again and again sorry for clogging your boards with this!

DJ Spinoza is offline  
Old
12-20-2003, 05:17 PM
  #9
I_r_1337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
They ment we didn't give up Sutherby.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrKnowNothing
I hate to bump this up guys, but I am still in this debate for some reason.

Here's a link to an old Post article. (sorry it's from tripod though...)

http://members.tripod.com/~mscapsfan/jagr0701.html

Here's a quote from the article:



Now, it's so easy to see what the quote means, but people at this other forum seem to be struggling, so I'd like your help again guys.

Of course Beech, Sivek, and Lupaschuk wouldn't have been considered the best minor league prospects because they were not making them minor league players. If you're not a minor league player and never have played a minor league game, it sure is hard to be a minor league prospects.

They were all in Junior hockey at the time, meaning that technically they were Junior hockey prospects.

This seems to be just a technicality used by the Post writer to make the trade sound much better than it was (you have to admit that getting at that time the best player in the world for three unproven prospects was a good trade, didn't turn out so well though).

It seems pretty open and shut here. They were among the best prospects in the entire system, as you guys have said. I've even quoted stats from hockeydb showing that there weren't any other guys you could consider better than Beech or Sivek at the time, and not many put up 65 points as a defensemen like Lupaschuk did in Red Deer a few years ago.

So could you please explain and back me up that they couldn't have been minor league prospects but were rather Junior league prospects (I've linked this thread over there, I'll pass on a link of the thread about Beech if you really want to read it, just ask me).

Thanks again and again sorry for clogging your boards with this!

I_r_1337 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 07:45 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.