HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Notices

HF Ranks the Sens organization 16th

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2011, 01:21 PM
  #76
Hale The Villain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,316
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
I think the ranking is more than fair.

While DR and JC give us two high end pieces to build around, our prospect pool is quite weak. Lehner, who has rebounded relatively well in the playoffs, lost the starting job in Bingo to a journeyman. Silfverberg is definitely intriguing and a riser (nice WC's), but most have seen him as a decent third line, borderline 2nd line prospect. I think his upside is a bit higher, but he is not an elite prospect at this point. Might be turning into one before our eyes, but no surprise the rest of the scouting world isn't about to bump him too much higher quite yet. Wiercioch had a dreadful year, that was saved at the end by some decent play. We have some diamonds in the rough strewn through the rest of the list, but it is weaker than pretty much any other team in the 10-20 range.

The only reason we're in the middle tier is because of our top two guys. If we didn't have them, we'd might be last in the entire league.
NYR loses Kreider and McDonagh
NSH loses Blum and Ellis
CLB loses Johansen and Moore
STL loses Tarasenko and Schwartz
EDM loses Marincin and Petry
NYI loses Niederreiter and Hamonic
ANA loses Etem and Palmieri
FLO loses Markstrom and Gudbranson
TOR loses Kadri and Gardiner

and they all have mediocre prospect pools as well. Take out the top 2 prospects of any team and they'll have an average-weak prospect pool.

Hale The Villain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 01:24 PM
  #77
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
My point is not that Buffalo having a better #7 ranked prospect makes up for the fact Kassian is rated lower than Rundblad in the top 25. It's the fact that the majority of their 6-10 guys are as good or better than our 4-5 guys.
You can phrase it that way, but either way you are arguing that depth at #6-10 makes up for deficits at the top.

Now take Carolina. HF ranks Dalpe and Boychuk at #36 and #37, well behind Rundblad and Cowen at #5 and #18. Nor do they have Buffalo's impressive depth. There appears to be very little justification for them being ranked ahead of us (or Buffalo for that matter). Same with Chicago.

Quote:
That's one set of ratings.
It's HF's own ratings, and it isn't asking much for their organizational rankings to be consistent with their player rankings.

If you want to argue that Rundblad and Cowen are overrated at #5 and #18, that is fine. But I can see no way for Rundblad and Cowen to be ranked that highly and yet Ottawa ranked so low.


Last edited by Lexicon Devil: 05-17-2011 at 01:32 PM.
Lexicon Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 02:06 PM
  #78
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil View Post
You can phrase it that way, but either way you are arguing that depth at #6-10 makes up for deficits at the top.

Now take Carolina. HF ranks Dalpe and Boychuk at #36 and #37, well behind Rundblad and Cowen at #5 and #18. Nor do they have Buffalo's impressive depth. There appears to be very little justification for them being ranked ahead of us (or Buffalo for that matter). Same with Chicago.
.
You can go through every team, just like I can with examples on both sides.

HF ranks those two forwards further back for sure, but both are country miles ahead of our best forward prospects. Silfverberg is the only guy in the same stratosphere.

Justin Faulk might be one of the more underappreciated prospects around and could easily be as good as Rundblad or Cowen. The kid is tremendous and might crack the NHL next year. He is younger than both Rundblad and Cowen and was arguably the best d-man in the entire NCAA this year as a freshman. I'd argue he is better than several of the top 50's D-men.

And then a goalie like Mike Murphy might end up as good or better than Lehner. Notwithstanding his last game against Bingo, he has been the better AHL goalie than Lehner by a country mile thus far in his young career, and while slightly older, he is more proven. He has been one of the top goalies in every league he's ever been in. And he's not even in their top 10.

Cane fans would argue a few of their other prospects are under-rated. I'm not even a Canes fan, but a quick look at their list has better names jumping out than ours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil View Post
If you want to argue that Rundblad and Cowen are overrated at #5 and #18, that is fine. But I can see no way for Rundblad and Cowen to be ranked that highly and yet Ottawa ranked so low.
Already answered - because the rest of our prospects would put us in the bottom 2 or 3 in the league. As such, our top two prospects jump us up ahead of about a dozen teams entire prospect pools.

And if you really can't see that, it's because you are a Sens fan and not objective.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 02:29 PM
  #79
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
Already answered - because the rest of our prospects would put us in the bottom 2 or 3 in the league. As such, our top two prospects jump us up ahead of about a dozen teams entire prospect pools.

And if you really can't see that, it's because you are a Sens fan and not objective.
I guess there is no point continuing this - it is clear that you aren't even reading or considering my posts. I have acknowledged that the Sens lack depth and obviously their prospect pool would be terrible without Cowen and Rundblad (although this is also true of just about every team without their top-2). To break out the "because you are a Sens fan and not objective" line is a copout. trentmccleary and I have clearly demonstrated how HF's organizational rankings and player rankings are not consistent. One or the other is wrong, given what we know about the respective value of top prospects and lower-tier prospects. You can starting praising guys like Justin Faulk all you want, but this merely indicates that HF's player rankings are wrong. With what we know about prospects, there is no logical way for Rundblad and Cowen to be #5 and #18 while the Sens are still below average.

Lexicon Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:09 PM
  #80
SP
Registered User
 
SP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
The only reason we're in the middle tier is because of our top two guys. If we didn't have them, we'd might be last in the entire league.
So if you take away our top prospects our ranking would fall? That's some incredible insight.

SP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:15 PM
  #81
EastCoastSensFan
Registered User
 
EastCoastSensFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pictou N.S.
Country: Canada
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
I do find it funny how people who agree with the ranking are unbiased and rational well everyone one else is blinded it must be nice to be that arrogant... ohhh sorry unbiased.

Also when did ripping ones "own" team become a sign of advanced knowledge?

EastCoastSensFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:24 PM
  #82
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post


Justin Faulk might be one of the more underappreciated prospects around and could easily be as good as Rundblad or Cowen. The kid is tremendous and might crack the NHL next year. He is younger than both Rundblad and Cowen and was arguably the best d-man in the entire NCAA this year as a freshman. I'd argue he is better than several of the top 50's D-men.
.
At a glance, his freshman year looks alot like Weircoch's. Would you have put Weircoch ahead of Rundblad and Cowen?

Micklebot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:28 PM
  #83
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Tooth Grin View Post
So if you take away our top prospects our ranking would fall? That's some incredible insight.
Don't act like a 10th grade homer, as that is clearly not the context of the point. You make yourself sound like a simpleton.

It's more like the Sens would drop by 5 or 6 spots, while other teams, perhaps only 2 or 3 spots. Our ranking is more dependent on our top two prospects more than any other prospect pool in the entire league.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:36 PM
  #84
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil View Post
I guess there is no point continuing this - it is clear that you aren't even reading or considering my posts. I have acknowledged that the Sens lack depth and obviously their prospect pool would be terrible without Cowen and Rundblad (although this is also true of just about every team without their top-2). To break out the "because you are a Sens fan and not objective" line is a copout. trentmccleary and I have clearly demonstrated how HF's organizational rankings and player rankings are not consistent. One or the other is wrong, given what we know about the respective value of top prospects and lower-tier prospects. You can starting praising guys like Justin Faulk all you want, but this merely indicates that HF's player rankings are wrong. With what we know about prospects, there is no logical way for Rundblad and Cowen to be #5 and #18 while the Sens are still below average.
Of course they are wrong, that is, the team pages.

They are put together by the individual writers for each team. This is basically a volunteer fan who writes for HF. Having played this role before at HF, I can tell you there is little vetting as to the writers abilities to accurately rank them. Sometimes they are good, sometimes not so much, sometimes very poor. And they are never consistent, because they are from 30 different fans/homers writing about their own team.

Certainly you don't think that having Caparusso as our 6th best prospect is either accurate or up to date? I can assure that when they get the folks to do the rankings, they don't pay too close attention to the relative ranking our own writers do, let alone the number grades they have.

As such, the organizational rankings are decent. The individual rankings on each team page are generally pretty bad, with some exceptions. The polls that are done within each team board are actually quite decent, and those are the ones that should be used.

If your whole issue is that it is based on the team ranking pages, then i understand. If it is because of the top 50 - where the 24th ranked player (kassian) might only be slightly behind a top 10 guy like Rundblad (in the average ranking score), then again, I can see why you are a bit rankled. But again, clinging to Rundblad's and Cowen's rankings as why we should be in the top 10 is pretty frail argument.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:42 PM
  #85
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
At a glance, his freshman year looks alot like Weircoch's. Would you have put Weircoch ahead of Rundblad and Cowen?
No, but I would put Faulk well ahead of Weircioch at the same age. Faulk is a tank and hits like one. He is mean. And his offensive game is as good as Wiercioch's. He's also a winner, having just lead his team as a freshman to the NCAA title.

Also, Wiercioch was actually a higher ranking prospect in college, than he is now. No one is arguing he has regressed a bit and his value has dropped. This actually happends with most d-man at his age who come out early, so not a shock. But given Wiercioch used to be a top ranked prospect himself (Top 50 etc., and is no longer) this doesn't mean that the same will happen to Faulk. On the contrary, Faulk plays a very physical game and looks like a better pro game than Wiercioch.

And to clarify, I would not take Faulk ahead of either our d-men. But the point is that the gap between Faulk and DR and JC, is probably smaller than the gap between Dalpe and Boychuk, compared to Silvferberg. If they all cancel each other out (or close to it, even in our favour), I can still see how Carolina comes out ahead of us by a bit. That was all.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 03:55 PM
  #86
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
No, but I would put Faulk well ahead of Weircioch at the same age. Faulk is a tank and hits like one. He is mean. And his offensive game is as good as Wiercioch's. He's also a winner, having just lead his team as a freshman to the NCAA title.

Also, Wiercioch was actually a higher ranking prospect in college, than he is now. No one is arguing he has regressed a bit and his value has dropped. This actually happends with most d-man at his age who come out early, so not a shock. But given Wiercioch used to be a top ranked prospect himself (Top 50 etc., and is no longer) this doesn't mean that the same will happen to Faulk. On the contrary, Faulk plays a very physical game and looks like a better pro game than Wiercioch.

And to clarify, I would not take Faulk ahead of either our d-men. But the point is that the gap between Faulk and DR and JC, is probably smaller than the gap between Dalpe and Boychuk, compared to Silvferberg. If they all cancel each other out (or close to it, even in our favour), I can still see how Carolina comes out ahead of us by a bit. That was all.
Actually, I think there is a bigger gap than you give credit for between DR and Faulk. My point in bringing up Wiercoch is that offensive numbers like his are not that uncommon in College (Gardiner being another example, although not in his freshman year), where as numbers like DR's in the SEL are extremely rare.

edit: Missed your last point, fair enough.

Micklebot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 04:08 PM
  #87
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
Of course they are wrong, that is, the team pages.
I was not talking about the individual team pages, which are notoriously unreliable, but rather the HF Top-50 prospects.

If one actually believes that we have the #5 and #18 prospects in the world, then we have an above average prospect group, even with a poor rest of the group.

Quote:
It's more like the Sens would drop by 5 or 6 spots, while other teams, perhaps only 2 or 3 spots.
Again, you are clearly underrating the importance of top prospects if you think that ANY team would only drop "2 or 3 spots" if you took away their top two prospects.

To put it another way, suppose we were to add two more players of Rundblad/Cowen caliber. You think that would only raise us "2 or 3 spots"??? No, we would have one of the best prospect pools in the league, if not the best. Adding/removing top players makes an enormous difference, not "2 or 3 spots".

Lexicon Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 09:38 PM
  #88
Afro Thunder*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,653
vCash: 500
Another crazy performance by Lehner 37 saves in a 7-1 win Smith with a hatrick, Cowen is PPG so far, Hofman with 8 points in the last 12 games, K Daug is still ripping it up.

Not bad for a #16 prospect pool that is on the verge of sweeping their way into the finals, bu but but Marlies have better prospects.

Afro Thunder* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 09:47 PM
  #89
ShotDownCrosby
Registered User
 
ShotDownCrosby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder View Post
Another crazy performance by Lehner 37 saves in a 7-1 win Smith with a hatrick, Cowen is PPG so far, Hofman with 8 points in the last 12 games, K Daug is still ripping it up.

Not bad for a #16 prospect pool that is on the verge of sweeping their way into the finals, bu but but Marlies have better prospects.
While I do agree that our prospects are doing well. And well, the Marlies aren`t in the playoffs.

Personally we should give it a rest the Leafs are ahead of us in way of prospects. Who knows how those prospects will pan out.

I love watching these Sens prospects, and that`s awesome!

So what if (for some reason) the Sens do better than the Leafs next year. Will we all be focusing on this article. Nope, its just our smaller pool of prospects performed better.

This probably wont happen, just trying to make a point that it doesn`t matter where someone assesses prospects for each team at, its how they actually perform in the NHL. So why are Sens fans in a hissy over it (sorry for sounding rude), but I personally see our prospects playing pretty well, and I`m just counting down the days to watch them play next year!

ShotDownCrosby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 09:53 PM
  #90
Iamok
#Panic
 
Iamok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,427
vCash: 500
Except that Bingo wouldn't be where they are without Locke, Potulny and Brust.

Iamok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 10:08 PM
  #91
Afro Thunder*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamok View Post
Except that Bingo wouldn't be where they are without Locke, Potulny and Brust.
They don't have some of our best prospects with them such as Rundblad, Silverberg, Da Costa, Petersson, Stone, Sorenson balances that out. Plus those players are still owned by the senators so I see no problem.


Last edited by Afro Thunder*: 05-17-2011 at 10:17 PM.
Afro Thunder* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 11:09 PM
  #92
jordan7hm
Registered User
 
jordan7hm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Who gives a **** where HF ranks the Sens?

It's all about wins on the ice, not about where some amateur thinks we rank. The pros can't project prospect development with any real certainty, but it matters where someone who isn't even in the business places us on an imaginary prospect pool success ranking? (note: I wouldn't care if it was pros either, it's still a stupid process)

jordan7hm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 11:10 PM
  #93
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil View Post
I was not talking about the individual team pages, which are notoriously unreliable, but rather the HF Top-50 prospects.

If one actually believes that we have the #5 and #18 prospects in the world, then we have an above average prospect group, even with a poor rest of the group.

Again, you are clearly underrating the importance of top prospects if you think that ANY team would only drop "2 or 3 spots" if you took away their top two prospects.

To put it another way, suppose we were to add two more players of Rundblad/Cowen caliber. You think that would only raise us "2 or 3 spots"??? No, we would have one of the best prospect pools in the league, if not the best. Adding/removing top players makes an enormous difference, not "2 or 3 spots".
We can agree to disagree then. If you look back at the historic top 50, you will see a lot of movement between players in the top 10 down to the 30's or 40's. And vice versa. They always sway a bit too much with the last few months and are based on a bit of over-reaction to what has transpired of late. But if you also look back at the historic top 50 with HF, you will see how many of the top 20 prospects amounted to a borderline NHLer or journeyman of neglible value. That is the reality.

I'm not saying this will happen with DR or JC, but it wouldn't be a surprise if neither Rundblad or Cowen turned into perennial allstars. For you to suggest those two alone cements our future prospect base ahead of the vast majority of the league is simply not realistic. That's my opinion anyway, and the opinion of HF and a number of objective people doing these rankings, too.

And obviously I didn't make the point clear enough on the value of these two guys to our ranking. Given I said Cowen and Rundblad moved us up 12-15 spots combined, why are you thinking adding two more of those guys of their ilk would only move us up 2-3 spots each? You have clearly missed my point, which is those two alone have moved us from around 30th, to 16th. They ARE our ranking, basically. Two more guys like that would put us top 5, most likely.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 11:47 PM
  #94
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
Given I said Cowen and Rundblad moved us up 12-15 spots combined, why are you thinking adding two more of those guys of their ilk would only move us up 2-3 spots each? You have clearly missed my point, which is those two alone have moved us from around 30th, to 16th. They ARE our ranking, basically. Two more guys like that would put us top 5, most likely.
Now you are saying that losing them would move us down 14 spots, but before you said 5-6. Don't blame me for the fact that you have been inconsistent in your arguments.

And I certainly never suggested either were surefire. We don't have any surefire prospects, but for that matter neither do Toronto, Buffalo, Carolina, Chicago,... Those teams have more prospects and are more likely to generate NHLers from their group, but with a better top-2, yes we are more likely to see an all-star come out of our group, which is far more important than a bunch of Marcus Folignos who if lucky turn into 3rd liners/4th defencemen.

Lexicon Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 11:48 PM
  #95
FolignoQuantumLeap
A mad Mup
 
FolignoQuantumLeap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A Blue Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Weaknesses: Robin Lehner gives the Senators a reason for hope between the pipes, but there is no depth in goal after him. Despite the great breadth of forward talent, there does not appear to be any with game-breaking talent.
Quoted for truth.

The 16 ranking is still a tad low for my liking but the reasoning is solid. However, HF has been notorious for underrating Ottawa's prospect pool for years.

How much higher do you think the ranking would be if Ottawa had drafted a couple of goalies over the past two drafts in the 6th or 7th rounds (ie "depth")... I bet it would be significant. Probably 12-13 spot.

Despite the lack of depth, not many teams can claim to have as bright of a future in goal and don't have the quality of a kid like Robin Lehner. The funny thing about that position is that only one guy can play so you only need one good one.

After this draft, the team should have addressed each weakness and will be a top 10 team in terms of prospects with a good shot at a top 5 spot.

I found it quite amusing that Carolina was ranked ahead... Ottawa's top 5 crushes theirs and the depth is pretty comparable.... and the whole dominating of Charlotte. Bad timing for HF I suppose. I suppose the same could be said about Buffalo but their prospect pool is quite solid and they are proven developers who continue to pump out quality players.

FolignoQuantumLeap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2011, 12:17 AM
  #96
The Fuhr
Registered User
 
The Fuhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hamilton,Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FolignoQuantumLeap View Post
I found it quite amusing that Carolina was ranked ahead... Ottawa's top 5 crushes theirs and the depth is pretty comparable.... and the whole dominating of Charlotte. Bad timing for HF I suppose. I suppose the same could be said about Buffalo but their prospect pool is quite solid and they are proven developers who continue to pump out quality players.
To be fair Charlotte has made it this far with virtually no help from AHL vets. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/csl.php?tid=6054

Sens have got big contributions from AHL vets on the way
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/csl.php?tid=3001

The Fuhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2011, 12:34 AM
  #97
FolignoQuantumLeap
A mad Mup
 
FolignoQuantumLeap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A Blue Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fuhr View Post
To be fair Charlotte has made it this far with virtually no help from AHL vets. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/csl.php?tid=6054

Sens have got big contributions from AHL vets on the way
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/csl.php?tid=3001
No doubt. Benoit, Keller and Potulny have been huge for Bingo in the playoffs. What Charlotte has done as such a young team is very impressive.

I still maintain that Rundblad, Cowen, Lenher, Silfverberg and Wiercioch is a superior group vs. Dalpe, Boychuk, Faulk (whom I'm very fond of), Dumoulin and Bowman by a pretty decent margin. Then compare the depth and there really isn't an argument for the Canes. They have guys like Mike Murphy (12) and Justin Shugg (14) in their bottom 10; we have Colin Greening (13) and Mark Stone (18) in the same range.

FolignoQuantumLeap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2011, 12:51 AM
  #98
Rumcajs
Registered User
 
Rumcajs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
I was really hoping we picked up a Goalie late in 2010, if Murray doesn't nab anyone in 2011 that is when i being to question Murray (Total Murray Man). Im hoping we go for Gibson or Hellberg.

Rumcajs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2011, 01:25 AM
  #99
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
As I mentioned in another thread, a large proportion of NHL goalies, including many of the best, weren't drafted in the top-7 rounds (e.g. Thomas, Rinne, Vokoun, Hiller, Backstrom, Halak, Khabibulin). Thus, I don't mind having poor goaltending depth, as it makes us a more attractive option for free agents. If given the choice, I would much rather have forward prospects and fill goaltending via free agency, rather than vice versa.

Lexicon Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2011, 03:09 AM
  #100
jmor
Sens and Jets
 
jmor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil View Post
As I mentioned in another thread, a large proportion of NHL goalies, including many of the best, weren't drafted in the top-7 rounds (e.g. Thomas, Rinne, Vokoun, Hiller, Backstrom, Halak, Khabibulin). Thus, I don't mind having poor goaltending depth, as it makes us a more attractive option for free agents. If given the choice, I would much rather have forward prospects and fill goaltending via free agency, rather than vice versa.

Yeah but with a 7th round pick i'd rather spend it on a longshot goalie rather then a longshot forward. This way give them a few years, see how they pan out. If they do then good for us, but if they don't then it's not a big deal.

jmor 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 06:06 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.