HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

OFFICIAL Minnesota Wild Draft thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2004, 04:01 PM
  #51
thestonedkoala
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Stafford is probably out of our reach...

We could move out and pick up two firsts, and maybe a second or two from a team like New York who have a ton of picks in the 1st and 2nd rounds this year.

 
Old
04-13-2004, 05:37 PM
  #52
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
See, I just don't think moving down in the 1st to get more picks is a great benefit to this team unless a team drastically overpays. I think Washington owns something like the 21st and 29th picks in this draft. If they offered those two straight up for our 12th I wouldn't take it. One of the reasons is that I have (at the least, a perception) that this draft really becomes the old crapshoot somewhere past the 15-18 range.

But the biggest reason comes when we examine the prospects we already have. We've got a whole pack of guys who at this point are looking like 2nd liners who should have very successful careers, but probably aren't guys you want to pair with a talent like Gaborik. We also have a pretty big glut of 3rd and 4th liners composed of o/ prospects and those leftovers from the 2nd line. Instead of adding two more of these kind of players to the mix we'd get in the late 1st, I'd like to keep the 12th and hope a blue chip defensive prospect falls to us (thelen). Or more realistically, take a guy like Picard who has star player potential. But then again, because he's more of a finisher, maybe Picard isn't the best candidate to play with Gaborik. Still you gotta like adding a defensively sound sniper who can hold his own physically. It makes for a versatile lemaire lineup:

Wanvig
Wallin
Gaborik

Dupuis
Koivu
O'Sullivan

Veilleux
M. Chouinard/ (or more preferably, a younger Wes Walz)
Irmen

Picard
Bouchard
Foy

x- Hannula, Boogaard


The scoring would be very equally distributed among the 1st, 2nd, and 4th lines and interchangable. Wallin played well with Gaborik at the end of the year, but it is quite a stretch to label him a no. 1 center. Same goes for Wanvig as a #1 power forward.

I guess the problem is that even at 12, and even if Stafford falls, we probably won't find Gaborik's perfect linemates. And if this team steadily improves, we're not likely to find them in the upcoming years' drafts either. We'll just have to hope either Foy or Wanvig develops into a number 1 power forward. And that either Koivu, Wallin, or Bouchard develops into a number 1 centerman. Otherwise, it might be time to go after superstar free agents. But when you look at the depth of potential 20-30 goal scorers on this team, you see why I'd prefer to have the #12 who could turn out to be a very good addition to the team as opposed to two late firsts who might turn out to be Pascal Dupuis and Matt Foy versions 2.0. Not a bad fate, but we've got plenty of these second liners.


Last edited by sushinsky4tsar: 04-13-2004 at 05:47 PM.
sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-13-2004, 06:02 PM
  #53
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
I think it's much the same story on defense. Schultz could develop into a pretty solid #2 d-man. We can be hopeful that Burns will be a good 3rd. And then we have a big glut of depth (Zyuzin, Mitchell, Kuba, Henry, Michalek, Heid, Reitz, Misharin, Bolduc) to fill out the 4th-8th spots.

Under no circumstances should we be drafting d-men in the early middle rounds or later. We've got plenty of these depth guys. What we could use is a blue chip potential #1. If Thelen falls, we should take him so we can actually close the book on drafting d-men for a year or two. I'd also make a run at Hedman if we can trade up in the second. If we never do find this #1, I guess everyone just moves up the depth chart one spot. Which is fine since it suits the Wild's system. The big thing is that we need some d-men who can actually help our forwards produce offense. With the likes of bomber and brown gone, and the promise of Schultz, Burns, Zyuzin, Michalek, Kuba, and Misharin. Perhaps there is some hope of getting more offensive contribution out of the blueline. In which case, that blue chip defensive prospect really isn't that criticial.

sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-13-2004, 06:39 PM
  #54
thestonedkoala
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
O'Sullivan works better in center (he can pass and he can shoot)

Foy pairs up well with Bouchard...

I can't think...

 
Old
04-13-2004, 07:30 PM
  #55
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thestonedkoala
O'Sullivan works better in center (he can pass and he can shoot)

Foy pairs up well with Bouchard...

I can't think...

True. I projected Bouchard as a center and Patrick figures to be the same with experience. But then the question becomes, which center has their talent for offensive playmaking wasted on the checking line.

If you project O'Sullivan to eventually center the first line w/ Gaborik, I definitely consider Patrick to have first line skills. But the problem then, is that we better find one HELL of a powerforward to compliment those two. First, he'd have to have the wheels to skate with them. Second he'd have to be an absolute horse who could do all the work on the boards. Third, he'd have to have great defensive awareness. Fourth, great vision and passing skills would be important. Asking for quite a bit. Hejduk maybe?

It's really hard to produce a Gaborik line as is. Wallin and Wanvig is the best I can do right now.

sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-13-2004, 07:35 PM
  #56
thestonedkoala
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
O'Sullivan is bigger than Bouchard...

 
Old
04-13-2004, 07:39 PM
  #57
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,955
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by sushinsky4tsar

If you project O'Sullivan to eventually center the first line w/ Gaborik, I definitely consider Patrick to have first line skills. But the problem then, is that we better find one HELL of a powerforward to compliment those two. First, he'd have to have the wheels to skate with them. Second he'd have to be an absolute horse who could do all the work on the boards. Third, he'd have to have great defensive awareness. Fourth, great vision and passing skills would be important. Asking for quite a bit. Hejduk maybe?
Sounds like Brent Burns

Seriously, give him a year or two, provided he doesn't move to Defense forever.

Surly Furious is offline  
Old
04-13-2004, 07:58 PM
  #58
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman
Sounds like Brent Burns

Seriously, give him a year or two, provided he doesn't move to Defense forever.

Ya know, that thought flashed in my mind for a brief instant, then all the "he's definitely playing the rest of his career on D" sentiments ingrained in my brain must have overcame me because I didn't even mention it. But, yes, his supposed upside as a forward does/did fit the bill. If he is on D, then I don't know where we're going to find that player. I just have doubts that Wanvig or Foy will ever be THAT good. Maybe though.

That's why I think we should keep the 12, maybe Stafford falls and he could be that guy. I don't know that I'd call him the perfect fit for those two either though.


TSK: What was your point w/ O'Sullivan being bigger than Bouchard? Is that supposed to mean Bouchard should stay on wing?

sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-13-2004, 09:51 PM
  #59
thestonedkoala
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
No, it means that Bouchard was put on wing because he wasn't big enough to play center.

 
Old
04-13-2004, 11:08 PM
  #60
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
It was more conditioning and decision-making than size that had Bouchard on wing, from what I read. Lemaire had some funny quotes about the look of Bouchard coming back to the bench after taking a couple of shifts at center.

I don't think we need to worry about seeing O'Sullivan for at least another season. Just a feeling, but from those most recent Risebrough quotes I think O'Sullivan is going to have to have an amazing camp if he's got any shot at all. And not in the typical "wow, he's talented" type of amazing camp, but in the more mundane "boy, he's consistently working hard and holding his own defensively" type of way. Riser's comments about patience combined with the maturity remarks he made about the Houston kids make me think we won't see O'Sullivan just yet... Unless he really plays it smart, that is.

ceber is offline  
Old
04-13-2004, 11:14 PM
  #61
thestonedkoala
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
The problem is I don't think O'Sullivan has much to learn in the OHL...just like Bouchard. It's not about the numbers, its about how you play the game and the maturity you show. O'Sullivan has worked through a lot these past two years, put up good numbers, and has shown great leadership skills on a team filled with young players and really no-name players.

 
Old
04-14-2004, 03:15 AM
  #62
Wild Bill
Registered User
 
Wild Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
IMO if Patrick makes the club next camp it will be because he shows versatility. This team is filled with versatile players. Gaborik, Walz, Park, Laaksonen, ...Burns! PMB is taking his sweet time in developing an all-around game, but has shown tenacity in his forechecking and a willingness to learn...I think that is why he is here anyway...

It seems like they draft for pure offensive skill and teach everything else. I expect more of the same style teaching with O'Sullivan. If he can bring his offense and speed to the table, on top of certain intangibles(defense, defense, defense), while working hard all the way through camp, he will be hard to ignore.

Wild Bill is offline  
Old
04-14-2004, 12:12 PM
  #63
SchultzWild10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
Assuming that Ovechkin, Malkin, Barker, and Olesz are all definately going to be gone, this is the order that I would rate the players available.

5. Schremp
6. Tukonen
7. Thelen
8. Ladd
9. Stafford
10. Picard
11. Wolski
12. O'neil/Green

I won't be mad if we get any of these players. They all seem to have a pretty good future in the NHL.

SchultzWild10 is offline  
Old
04-14-2004, 10:27 PM
  #64
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchultzWild10
Assuming that Ovechkin, Malkin, Barker, and Olesz are all definately going to be gone, this is the order that I would rate the players available.

5. Schremp
6. Tukonen
7. Thelen
8. Ladd
9. Stafford
10. Picard
11. Wolski
12. O'neil/Green

I won't be mad if we get any of these players. They all seem to have a pretty good future in the NHL.

For the Wild's pick, that looks about right. We can probably only start to dream of a fall for #9 and down.

sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-15-2004, 01:23 AM
  #65
rubicon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
1st round=add dupris in to make sure get Tukonen
2nd round=Julius Ellis, he is the real deal
3rd round= Victor Alexandorov perfect 3rd line center behind O'Sullivan and Kiovu

rubicon is offline  
Old
04-15-2004, 02:45 AM
  #66
Wild Bill
Registered User
 
Wild Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
I'm really starting to feel that last year changed everything. A little honeymoon-hangover.

I know ALOT of the future hinges on prospects. I know that we will be able to nab a good prospect (whoever) at whatever position with the 12 pick, but the real questions are, will they help? Can they help soon? Are we rebuilding?

It feels like we are rebuilding a team that was never really built.

For starters, the squad we have assembled is not far off. Conference Finals last year and playoff contender this year (depending on how you look at it). Dwayne Roloson and our defensive philosophy alone should be enough to keep us competitive. Is this enough to change the course? Can you build around a bunch of cast-offs like Park, Walz, Brunette, Daigle, Roloson, and expect to contend, long run? When does the window close? Have the last 4 four years just been a pat on the head or are these cast-offs part of the bigger plan?

In an ideal world, next year, we would be able to suit up a team like sushinsky4tsar envisioned in an earlier post. Who wouldn't want to see that? Unfortunately, veterens are vital to success in the NHL. How many teams of under 25's won a title? None. Biting the bullet now and gutting the whole thing seems like the obvious course of action, but why, when you don't have to.

I'm not for trading the pick, necessarily, but more for the betterment of the franchise. This is why, IMO, this draft is more important than previous ones, to the course of the Wild. Some of these questions need to be adressed.

Sorry, had to rant...Trade! Trade! Trade!


Last edited by Wild Bill: 04-15-2004 at 02:53 AM.
Wild Bill is offline  
Old
04-15-2004, 12:07 PM
  #67
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
I should clarify: those lines I posted earlier are by no means a projected lineup for this upcoming year nor the next. With players like Irmen, Foy, Boogaard, Harding, this year's pick, I would say I was talking 2006-2007.

Also, if the suggestion is to trade our pick for a veteran this year to replace the likes of Park, I think this would be a big mistake. We really aren't going to have too many scrubs on this team next year. We're going to have a lot of the better veterans we had on this team this year, and the rest of the roster will be occupied by some of the young guns who have a chance to be real good NHLers.

Veilleux is in for Laaksonen. O'Sullivan (maybe) for Park. Wallin is in for Zholtok. And we're throwing Wanvig into the mix too. There's not many glaring holes that need to be filled. We need to keep our pick and keep building for the future. This team isn't ready to go back to the WCF yet.

And as for trading Dupuis to move up, also a mistake in my book. I'm not going to lie and say I'd be disappointed if trading Dupuis allowed us to jump up and get a guy like Thelen. But seriously, there's no need to go on a wild goose chase for a guy to become the second Gaborik. Not at the expense of a prospect that has already developed into a pretty good player. Tukonen could be great. Tukonen could be a bust. One guy on the prospect board is saying Thelen could be the next Rob Blake. Thelen could be a bust. The same guy is saying Picard resembles a more physical Miroslav Satan w/ potential to be the next Iginla. Picard could be a total bust. Don't dump a quality player to swap property rights of prospects that prob. have near equal chances of being superstars or busts.

sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-15-2004, 02:14 PM
  #68
Wild Bill
Registered User
 
Wild Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
No, I know you didn't mean that...sorry for the confusion. I meant that with a "nucleus" already there, and I use the word nucleus real loosely, it seems that were a d-man and 2 forwards away from contending with the likes of the Av's, Cannucks, and upstart Flames. Wanvig and Wallin seem most likely to grab spots next year and I was real impressed with Michalek's poise as a rookie, but these guys are nowhere near locks and we all know which way JL will go if it comes down to an inexperienced player versus an experienced one. We definitely need more talented rookies push the Wanvigs and Wallins out of stagnation.

Wild Bill is offline  
Old
04-15-2004, 10:10 PM
  #69
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
I agree we're really not as far away as getting back into the playoffs than what I thought before we went on the end of the season tear. Jacques definitely loves the vets but I really think that the commitment has been made to go with the youngsters. I would bet on Michalek being here as long as he doesn't regress over the offseason. Otherwise, if he's not on this team, we better have signed Sergei Gonchar in the offseason. Which of course we won't do. If we end up signing a second version of Brad Bombardir or the original, and it costs Michalek a spot, I take back any good thing I've ever said about this organization's management. Bank on Michalek being here as the 7th d-man behind Kuba, Mitchell, Schultz, Zyuzin, Henry, Burns. Also bank on Wallin, Wanvig, and Veilleux all being here unless one of them got cocky in the offseason. Bank on Koivu most likely being here.

So that means that adding new players via trade or free agaency would only replace the current vets. But obviously this team just won't spend the money, not yet at least. M. Chouinard won't be replaced by a faceoff man who can score 30 goals a year. A rich man's Brunette won't replace the current Brunette.

I guess I'm a little unsure of what you think should be done with this draft pick? If you're advocating that we trade it for a quality veteran, I don't see the point. The team hasn't reached that point yet. If you meant we should package one of our vets to trade up from 12, that makes some sense. The problem is I just don't see any prospects, outside the top 5, that would be leaps and bounds above what we'll get at 12.

sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-15-2004, 10:34 PM
  #70
rubicon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sushinsky4tsar
The problem is I just don't see any prospects, outside the top 5, that would be leaps and bounds above what we'll get at 12.
Sorry but I have to differ. The top seven or eight guys are on a different leval, and they should be valued as such. I know I probally am a little biased, but I was at game four at anahiem last year, and there where over half a dozen times an eaxtra little could have made or broke that game. What I am trying to say is a team sould always try to get better, and settling for a guy that is probally interchangeable with who will get picked ten picks latter, which this draft is after those top few. There are always gems latter on in the later rounds I know, and I think that polish winger we got last year will be one, but this is move the wild should make.

rubicon is offline  
Old
04-16-2004, 02:12 AM
  #71
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
I probably dropped the ball when I mentioned "top 5" as the cutoff point. I agree with you. I think this draft is probably 8 deep: Ovechkin, Malkin, Olesz, Barker, Schremp, Ladd, Tukonen, Thelen. At #9 Anaheim, I think there's a bit of a dip if those first 8 go 1-8. We're talking about Stafford, Schwarz, Picard, O'Neill at that point. Who I think are a step below the first group of 8 when it comes to intriguing prospects with Super-star upside. Although Wolski is intriguing and worthy of the top 8, his risk is too high for me.

So let me amend my statement: after the top 8, there's not a whole lot of difference between #9 and #12. So in order to get a more elite prospect, we would have to move up into the 5-8th position. Although I respect your opinion, I would ask that you submit a proposal for who we should be giving up to make that bold leap. IMO, Dupuis alone isn't going to be enough to pry that away. Willie Mithchell isn't going to be enough. Nick Schultz isn't going to be enough. We'd have to put together a pretty impressive mini-package of 2 very promising young players on this team, or 1 very promising and a high draft pick. Do you think packaging away some of the young talent we're trying to build a future contender on is really the smartest thing to do. When all it does is get us a somewhat significant upgrade of draft choice this year. I don't know, if we start talking Dupuis, Foy, and Heid in order to get Tukonen in this draft (that probably wouldn't even be enough).......................I'll i'm saying is going about our way and drafting Picard at 12 starts to look pretty good.

I said earlier that if the Wild end up with a top line of Gaborik and O'Sullivan they're going to have a hell of a time finding a dynamic powerforward in order to make that combination work. If that player was there, I'd say goodbye Pascal, good luck Matt and Chris. But I don't think Ladd is a can't miss in that regard. Do you wanna add Schremp that badly. A taller Patrick O'Sullivan when we're already vey deep at center? I just don't see it.


Last edited by sushinsky4tsar: 04-16-2004 at 02:19 AM.
sushinsky4tsar is offline  
Old
04-16-2004, 09:53 AM
  #72
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Anyone know why Chipchura has fallen as he has? He was #1 in central scouting's midseason North America rankings, and now it seems popular opinion on HF has him going in the middle to bottom half of the first. Some of the things I've read about him from people who've claimed to have seen him quite a bit make him sound pretty attractive still. Good skating, setup skills, good passing, gritty(! Oh how I long for some more grit up front on this team), etc. What'd he do that have people down on him? Not score enough? He's got what.. 3 goals and 2 assists through five games in the U18s over in Belarus? Not too bad. I wonder what Riser and Tommy think of him? I bet they've been checking him out over there.


Last edited by ceber: 04-16-2004 at 09:59 AM.
ceber is offline  
Old
04-16-2004, 11:12 AM
  #73
Kristofer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Anyone know why Chipchura has fallen as he has? He was #1 in central scouting's midseason North America rankings, and now it seems popular opinion on HF has him going in the middle to bottom half of the first. Some of the things I've read about him from people who've claimed to have seen him quite a bit make him sound pretty attractive still. Good skating, setup skills, good passing, gritty(! Oh how I long for some more grit up front on this team), etc. What'd he do that have people down on him? Not score enough? He's got what.. 3 goals and 2 assists through five games in the U18s over in Belarus? Not too bad. I wonder what Riser and Tommy think of him? I bet they've been checking him out over there.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that he only put up 48 points(15g33a) in 64 games this year. Lots of people, myself included, look at the stats and wonder if he really has the offensive ability to be a high draft pick. Seems like he could be good player for the Wild. But I prefer somebody with more offensive skills, I guess.
Once again I sure do wish I could see these guys play.

Kristofer is offline  
Old
04-16-2004, 03:46 PM
  #74
Wild Bill
Registered User
 
Wild Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sushinsky4tsar
I guess I'm a little unsure of what you think should be done with this draft pick? If you're advocating that we trade it for a quality veteran, I don't see the point. The team hasn't reached that point yet. If you meant we should package one of our vets to trade up from 12, that makes some sense. The problem is I just don't see any prospects, outside the top 5, that would be leaps and bounds above what we'll get at 12.
I'm not advocating a trade at 12, but I'd like to see all options explored before we just sit on our hands and let the future dictate what direction we head in. I DON'T want end up in lottery-hell in a couple of years.

Jani Rita? Igor Grigorenko? Someone that has lost a little luster, but can still become a solid to great player. Some type of trade along those lines...obviously picking up picks in the process.

Mostly what I meant...

Wild Bill is offline  
Old
04-16-2004, 03:59 PM
  #75
sushinsky4tsar
Registered User
 
sushinsky4tsar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
Yeah, I understand you. And an open mind should be kept on trading the pick. To me I just don't think the urgency is there though. Despite the addition of youth for this season, I think we'll witness a steady climb towards the top for this organization. Even with all the learning, I think we'll at least be as close to a playoff spot next year as we were this. We are in a building mode, not rebuilding. Last year was a fluke run. A fluke I think we're all lucky to have despite the fact it delayed the 5 yr plan. For me, I think we have better odds of building a contender with the 12th pick than trading it for the players you mentioned +.

sushinsky4tsar 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 03:47 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.