I would have to say now that Martin Lapointe was the best pick. If Fisher had retained his form from before his injury, which I thought had Norris Trophy potential, then I would have said him. He is having a horrible season so far im my humble estimation.
Seriously, at this point, Fischer is still a prospect.
Primeau, however, is an established good player in the league.
How can Fischer rate ahead of Primeau?
Because they are talking about the best pick and not the best player at this exact point, I would guess. Primeau is a third line center now, hasn't ever been more than a competent second liner in his career, and is likely within a year or two of being completely ineffective. Fischer, on the other hand, is already a second pairing defenseman and is likely (although not certain) to improve to a decent first pairing guy.
best: lapointe ( fischer closely behind as his potential hasn't been fully seen yet )
worst: bowen as said above, never saw an nhl game
how can fischer be called a prospect? ... he's played how many games for us?... now kronwall, hudler, any of our european draftees.. now THEY'RE prospects prospects DO NOT have over a year's nhl experience under their belts.. if they do then they obviously aren't prospects no more
Best: agreed with guiness, its between Primeau and Lapointe as far as I'm concerned. Both have had some solid seasons in their careers. At this point I choose either Primeau or Lapointe ahead of Fischer simply because I believe they've accomplished more. If you ask this question again in a few years time I could very well say Fischer.
just looking at the 1996 draft, wow, if you look at the first round, your definitly gonna laugh yourself to sleep, how a draft could be so bad amazes me, only 1-3 players are actaully worth being a first rounder
Last edited by zetterberg40: 12-25-2003 at 07:34 PM.