HFBoards

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

TSN : Lottery Lookahead

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2009, 07:53 PM
  #51
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
The idea of a guy like Ellis and his Mike Green-esque skill-set is uber appealing for our team. Now, since we are becoming a more open, aggressive team again, there is still the possibility that such a player already exists in our organization (Letang, Goligoski and to a much lesser extent Grant).

The problem is guys who have already played in the league are less likely to suddenly let loose. Players learn tendencies in the pros, and it's kinda hard to reinvent the wheel sometimes. Both Letang and Goligoski wouldn't need THAT much of a change in their approach to play this type of game but it is possible that it's too late. That some of their game will alter but not all the way. Of course, it's also possible that they'll never reach Mike Green status for a number of other reasons, such as perhaps less of a free-wheeling attitude when on the ice, etc.

Bottom line for me is this. We seem hesitant (some of you, not me) to trade Whitney because A) Gonchar's status beyond next season is not known and B) There is uncertainty whether or not any of Letang, Goligoski or Grant can eventually fill Sarge's shoes (I believe whether we keep Whitney or not, it's the same thing because I don't believe Whitney CAN fill those shoes either).

Drafting Ellis would definitely ease these concerns imo. And it would bring in a legitimate heir apparent to Sarge, provided he can work on his defensive game enough to make it. Is that enough to off-set Kassian's qualities that this organization (and most others) desperately need? That's up to our braintrust.

It's a very interesting debate because it's between a guy with the type of upside most teams prefer in a first-round pick (Ellis) versus a guy that after he develops in the NHL everybody will want to have (Kassian). And, both come with reasonable risk.

Honestly, I like either. But I also like the idea of specifically targeting wingers in the first round if they are worthy of being picked where we are picking.

And once again, none of this matters if we choose to trade this pick again.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 08:51 PM
  #52
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASV 27 View Post
I think saw that. Isn't that the draft that Snow traded back a few times to pick Bailey and got a few more 2nd rounders?

GMs have a set list of who they want, which may not be exactly the same order of the scouting service lists. I find it hard to believe that Shero would draft a puck moving defenseman if he could pick a power forward who's a natural winger.
yeah, thats the one. I remember Holland saying that Philly might draft a goaltender when he was wondering whether or not his guy was going to be there for him.

Gooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:20 PM
  #53
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
yeah, thats the one. I remember Holland saying that Philly might draft a goaltender when he was wondering whether or not his guy was going to be there for him.
I think you're missing the point.

Detroit doesn't need McCollum to play this year...or even next year. They have Osgood signed for several years and Jimmy Howard waiting in the minors to challenge for the starting spot/be their backup. So they don't need another goalie.

Did you ever think that Detroit had McCollum as their BPA at that particular point in the draft and were hoping Philly would pass and he'd fall to them?

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:22 PM
  #54
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
I think you're missing the point.

Detroit doesn't need McCollum to play this year...or even next year. They have Osgood signed for several years and Jimmy Howard waiting in the minors to challenge for the starting spot/be their backup. So they don't need another goalie.

Did you ever think that Detroit had McCollum as their BPA at that particular point in the draft and were hoping Philly would pass and he'd fall to them?
And they have Daniel Larsson, who could be better than Howard. And the Wings are now getting a ton of heat for taking McCollum over Markstrom. Obviously, it's too early for any of that.

But it's pretty obvious that McCollum was their BPA, knowing what we know about the Wings' penchant for Europeans.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:34 PM
  #55
PenguinGuru*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sexburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
Hard to pass up BPA. Ellis is, like Esposito, a (likely) mid-1st-round pick with as much fan-fair and popularity as anyone else in the draft. He could fetch a nice return in a trade, or allow us to deal a Whitney or Goligoski. Maybe he could convert to wing, too, who knows.
May as well, everybody else on the Pens blue line has played forward. No sense drafting a guy who actually wants to play wing.

PenguinGuru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:36 PM
  #56
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Sid87 View Post
And they have Daniel Larsson, who could be better than Howard. And the Wings are now getting a ton of heat for taking McCollum over Markstrom. Obviously, it's too early for any of that.

But it's pretty obvious that McCollum was their BPA, knowing what we know about the Wings' penchant for Europeans.
Markstrom looked pretty average at the WJC and really benefited from playing behind a strong Swedish defense.

I know he didn't win any points from the Canadian fans with his antics either.

Back to Ellis, it's funny how people are dismissing him a little. Imagine if he was already our prospect and having the kind of year he's having how? People would go bananas for him around here. But they almost see him as being in the way of drafting Kassian I think.

There's something very high school about it.

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:37 PM
  #57
SirJordanStaal11*
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,629
vCash: 500
The only reason that anyone is *****ing about the "BPA" philosophy, is because the players we have drafted under that philosophy weren't really the BPAs and were at a position we didn't need.

The obvious example is drafting Jordan Staal, a center, when we already had two centers and the best player available wasn't even Staal. We would have probably been far better off now with Phil Kessel, or even Toews.


I am particularly confused at why you, Gooch, would not want to draft a potentially awesome offensive-defensemen like Ellis if he is the best player available when you have been preaching about us focusing on having puckmoving defensemen.

I'm not disputing that we need wingers, badly, but if there is a better player available than the best wing, I'd rather have that player. Worst comes to worst, we can trade them for what we need, as we did with Esposito. Shero almost, almost, turned Angelo into what would have been the best winger in the East in Hossa. The gamble didn't pay off, but if we win the cup instead of Detroit, I guarantee Hossa stays. And if we didn't have Therrien, I wouldn't be surprised if he would have stayed, either.

To sum up I am fine with the BPA philosophy as long as that player is actually the best player available, and not a bust(as I think Staal will be, considering his drafting slot. I understand others disagree and think he will become that elite player that a number 2 overall should be, but I don't think he will ever get there).

SirJordanStaal11* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:37 PM
  #58
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
Markstrom looked pretty average at the WJC and really benefited from playing behind a strong Swedish defense.

I know he didn't win any points from the Canadian fans with his antics either.

Back to Ellis, it's funny how people are dismissing him a little. Imagine if he was already our prospect and having the kind of year he's having how? People would go bananas for him around here. But they almost see him as being in the way of drafting Kassian I think.

There's something very high school about it.
I won't hide the fact that I love Kassian as a great fit for this team, but damn those Ellis numbers are hard to ignore. Very hard.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:41 PM
  #59
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilance View Post
The only reason that anyone is *****ing about the "BPA" philosophy, is because the players we have drafted under that philosophy weren't really the BPAs and were at a position we didn't need.

The obvious example is drafting Jordan Staal, a center, when we already had two centers and the best player available wasn't even Staal. We would have probably been far better off now with Phil Kessel, or even Toews.


I am particularly confused at why you, Gooch, would not want to draft a potentially awesome offensive-defensemen like Ellis if he is the best player available when you have been preaching about us focusing on having puckmoving defensemen.

I'm not disputing that we need wingers, badly, but if there is a better player available than the best wing, I'd rather have that player. Worst comes to worst, we can trade them for what we need, as we did with Esposito. Shero almost, almost, turned Angelo into what would have been the best winger in the East in Hossa. The gamble didn't pay off, but if we win the cup instead of Detroit, I guarantee Hossa stays. And if we didn't have Therrien, I wouldn't be surprised if he would have stayed, either.

To sum up I am fine with the BPA philosophy as long as that player is actually the best player available, and not a bust(as I think Staal will be, considering his drafting slot. I understand others disagree and think he will become that elite player that a number 2 overall should be, but I don't think he will ever get there).
The only thing I dispute is the notion that BPA would not have led to Staal being drafted No. 2 overall. BPA means the highest rated player on the team's board, not who turns out to be the best player in hindsight.

And St. Louis was torn between Johnson and Staal because Davidson loved Staal a ton. There was absolutely nothing wrong with taking Staal second overall, and he's now a 20-minute guy in the NHL in his third campaign. If anybody thinks about it, seriously, Staal is not even close to a failure of a pick.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:48 PM
  #60
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Sid87 View Post
The only thing I dispute is the notion that BPA would not have led to Staal being drafted No. 2 overall. BPA means the highest rated player on the team's board, not who turns out to be the best player in hindsight.

And St. Louis was torn between Johnson and Staal because Davidson loved Staal a ton. There was absolutely nothing wrong with taking Staal second overall, and he's now a 20-minute guy in the NHL in his third campaign. If anybody thinks about it, seriously, Staal is not even close to a failure of a pick.
Yeah and all the alternatives were centers also...so I'm sure position didn't factor into it at all.

I remember I really wanted Backstrom that year...but he'd be eve more of an odd man out than Staal. It's not like you can stick him on the third line like we do with Staal and I don't think he's ever even thought about playing wing. I'd still rather have Backstrom than Staal personally...but I think I'd get headaches if I had to watch him and Sid constantly pass up shots to make an extra pass to one another.

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:49 PM
  #61
SirJordanStaal11*
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Sid87 View Post
The only thing I dispute is the notion that BPA would not have led to Staal being drafted No. 2 overall. BPA means the highest rated player on the team's board, not who turns out to be the best player in hindsight.

And St. Louis was torn between Johnson and Staal because Davidson loved Staal a ton. There was absolutely nothing wrong with taking Staal second overall, and he's now a 20-minute guy in the NHL in his third campaign. If anybody thinks about it, seriously, Staal is not even close to a failure of a pick.
I'm sorry, but I think he is. Look at who was drafted behind him:

Toews is better.
Kessel is better.
Backstrom is better.


And yes, I understand that points aren't everything, but I don't think anyone here can legitimately argue that Staal is as good as those players even when considering all the factors.

My point was that Staal was a bust relative to his draft slot, (so far at least)not that he is a bust of a pick period considering that he is an NHL calibre player.

SirJordanStaal11* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:51 PM
  #62
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilance View Post
I'm sorry, but I think he is. Look at who was drafted behind him:

Toews is better.
Kessel is better.
Backstrom is better.


And yes, I understand that points aren't everything, but I don't think anyone here can legitimately argue that Staal is as good as those players even when considering all the factors.

My point was that Staal was a bust relative to his draft slot, (so far at least)not that he is a bust of a pick period considering that he is an NHL calibre player.
If you're ready to state that at age 20, bravo. I am not.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:52 PM
  #63
PenguinGuru*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sexburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilance View Post
The only reason that anyone is *****ing about the "BPA" philosophy, is because the players we have drafted under that philosophy weren't really the BPAs and were at a position we didn't need.

The obvious example is drafting Jordan Staal, a center, when we already had two centers and the best player available wasn't even Staal. We would have probably been far better off now with Phil Kessel, or even Toews.
I don't think Kessel or Toews are considerably better than Staal, but they made so much more sense because they both had proven success on the wing. Perhaps more importantly, a willingness to play the wing. These are extremely important things to consider when you already have 2 franchise centers on your depth chart.



Quote:
I'm not disputing that we need wingers, badly, but if there is a better player available than the best wing, I'd rather have that player. Worst comes to worst, we can trade them for what we need, as we did with Esposito. Shero almost, almost, turned Angelo into what would have been the best winger in the East in Hossa. The gamble didn't pay off, but if we win the cup instead of Detroit, I guarantee Hossa stays. And if we didn't have Therrien, I wouldn't be surprised if he would have stayed, either.
No. No, no, no, no, no. This is such a common misconception these days. Understand this. The ONLY bargains left in the NHL are ENTRY LEVEL CONTRACTS. The past two MVP's made less than 6 million combined. IMPACT players such as Toews, Ryan, and Green are entering the league with automatic three year deals that are extremely cap friendly. This is why you want to select players that you WILL use. Drafting to trade, it's a horrible idea. That kind of logic will leave you Munson'ed out in the middle of nowhere every time.

The Cap era requires outside the box, nontraditional thinking.

LUCKILY, Hossa didn't sign here. Because if he did, we would be screwed long term.

1.Why would Malkin want to stay on a team where he can't even play with the best wingers on a regular basis?
2.How can you provide balanced depth with 3 forwards sucking up half of your cap space?


Quote:
To sum up I am fine with the BPA philosophy as long as that player is actually the best player available, and not a bust(as I think Staal will be, considering his drafting slot. I understand others disagree and think he will become that elite player that a number 2 overall should be, but I don't think he will ever get there).
Agreed. And more to the point, if they seriously thought Staal was far and away better than Toews and/or Kessel. Then the question becomes, what is wrong with the Penguins scouting/managment team that they would have thought that?

PenguinGuru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 09:58 PM
  #64
66-29-33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,529
vCash: 500
I want Kassian because he's a need but i know it's BPA, Shero knows it's BPA, everyone knows it's BPA. Like Jags or someone said on the 1st page...if we can ship Whitney or Staal for a winger, then take Ellis, so when Gonchar is gone we have Ellis, i am fine with that.

66-29-33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:00 PM
  #65
66-29-33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Sid87 View Post
The only thing I dispute is the notion that BPA would not have led to Staal being drafted No. 2 overall. BPA means the highest rated player on the team's board, not who turns out to be the best player in hindsight.

And St. Louis was torn between Johnson and Staal because Davidson loved Staal a ton. There was absolutely nothing wrong with taking Staal second overall, and he's now a 20-minute guy in the NHL in his third campaign. If anybody thinks about it, seriously, Staal is not even close to a failure of a pick.
In a few years assumning we took Johnson, and take Ellis.

Johnson-Letang
Whitney-Ellis
Orpik-Gogo

66-29-33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:02 PM
  #66
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinGuru View Post
Agreed. And more to the point, if they seriously thought Staal was far and away better than Toews and/or Kessel. Then the question becomes, what is wrong with the Penguins scouting/managment team that they would have thought that?
Why far and away? All they had to feel was that Staal was one iota better than the others for them to take him. Honestly, Staal was probably the safest pick of them all. But that is to say, not without upside as well.

Hey, I wanted Kessel back then but I am more than happy with Staal. I am not ready to give up on the idea that with better talent on the wings in our top six, our three-center attack can lead us far once again.

Moreover, without Staal, we'd probably go through a revolving door at the third-line C position in search of the ideal guy. As far as I'm concerned, we have that ideal guy. Now, let's get those wingers.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:04 PM
  #67
Don'tcry4mejanhrdina
Registered User
 
Don'tcry4mejanhrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: This space.
Country: Poland
Posts: 9,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilance View Post

My point was that Staal was a bust relative to his draft slot, (so far at least)not that he is a bust of a pick period considering that he is an NHL calibre player.
Staal was considered a bit of a project but ended up scoring 29 goals as an 18 year old. Followed that up by being the third line shutdown center on a Stanley Cup finalist and is now on pace for a 20 goal 40+ point season again at only 20. Now none of that will blow you away, but it's surely not "bust" material. Especially since most players aren't even in the NHL at Staal's age, let alone scoring 20+ goals on the third line.

Don'tcry4mejanhrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:05 PM
  #68
Crosberry87
Registered User
 
Crosberry87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,975
vCash: 500
Alex Grant will be the heir apparent to Gonchar and our PP quarterback for years to come.

You heard it here first. Write it down.

Crosberry87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:06 PM
  #69
Goalie_Bob
1992 Vezina (2nd)
 
Goalie_Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinGuru View Post
And more to the point, if they seriously thought Staal was far and away better than Toews and/or Kessel. Then the question becomes, what is wrong with the Penguins scouting/managment team that they would have thought that?
Because drafting 17-18 year olds can be a crapshoot? You make it seem like Staal is Jason Bonsignore.

And I'd much rather have Mike Green than Milan Lucic.

Goalie_Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:10 PM
  #70
PenguinGuru*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sexburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Sid87 View Post
Why far and away? All they had to feel was that Staal was one iota better than the others for them to take him. Honestly, Staal was probably the safest pick of them all. But that is to say, not without upside as well.

Hey, I wanted Kessel back then but I am more than happy with Staal. I am not ready to give up on the idea that with better talent on the wings in our top six, our three-center attack can lead us far once again.

Moreover, without Staal, we'd probably go through a revolving door at the third-line C position in search of the ideal guy. As far as I'm concerned, we have that ideal guy. Now, let's get those wingers.
It's unrealistic to suggest that they can get the right wingers without:

A.Drafting them.
B.Not paying 4 million on a 3rd line center.

PenguinGuru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:12 PM
  #71
PenguinGuru*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sexburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don'tcry4mejanhrdina View Post
Staal was considered a bit of a project but ended up scoring 29 goals as an 18 year old. Followed that up by being the third line shutdown center on a Stanley Cup finalist and is now on pace for a 20 goal 40+ point season again at only 20. Now none of that will blow you away, but it's surely not "bust" material. Especially since most players aren't even in the NHL at Staal's age, let alone scoring 20+ goals on the third line.
Agreed.

Let me ask you this. If Staal never becomes a top 6 forward for the Penguins, is he a bust? By "top 6" I mean playing against opponents top lines and complimenting other skilled players on the team.

PenguinGuru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:14 PM
  #72
PenguinGuru*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sexburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalie_Bob View Post
Because drafting 17-18 year olds can be a crapshoot? You make it seem like Staal is Jason Bonsignore.

And I'd much rather have Mike Green than Milan Lucic.
Sneep=Green?


PenguinGuru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:15 PM
  #73
PenguinGuru*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sexburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrakaLangKovy View Post
Alex Grant will be the heir apparent to Gonchar and our PP quarterback for years to come.

You heard it here first. Write it down.
I ran out of ink, so instead I carved it into my leg.

PenguinGuru* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:16 PM
  #74
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinGuru View Post
It's unrealistic to suggest that they can get the right wingers without:

A.Drafting them.
B.Not paying 4 million on a 3rd line center.
No one's disagreeing with you.

But it shouldn't involve reaching for a player in the first round when there are still better players on the board. Maybe it's a second round pick? I know I really like Tomas Tatar...maybe they take him in the 2nd or 3rd round?

You keep talking about Lucic...but Lucic wasn't a first round pick. Maybe the Pens address their needs in a round where it suits them? There aren't a lot of high-end wingers in this year's draft...and the drop-off after the first few is pretty big. Maybe they let the depth of the draft for certain positions along with their drafting position dictate their selections? That's called BPA.

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2009, 10:24 PM
  #75
Goalie_Bob
1992 Vezina (2nd)
 
Goalie_Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinGuru View Post
Sneep=Green?

When did I say that?

I'm referring to Ellis versus Kassian. You know, what we are talking about in this thread.

Goalie_Bob 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 09:03 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.