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

The Pool gets deeper......

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-25-2011, 11:50 PM
  #26
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,969
vCash: 500
Here's my top 15:

1. Granlund
2. Coyle
3. Brodin
4. Scandella
5. Phillips
6. Zucker
7. Hackett
8. Larsson
9. Wellman
10. Gillies
11. Cuma
12. Bulmer
13. Lucia
14. Kuemper
15. Prosser

By the way, one more good draft and the Wild end up with more good prospects than they have spots for in the NHL. That, my friends, is when you can start doing things like trading up at a draft, or making deadline deals to add firepower for a playoff run. CF has turned this around quite well in a short time.

Surly Furious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2011, 11:52 PM
  #27
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,579
vCash: 500
I guess I just don't understand how you can so easily dismiss Zucker's success at Denver. I've looked at the list of Freshman that have produced like he has in the past, and it is a very short and impressive list. I'm excited for Coyle, but what he did at Boston doesn't compare to Zucker. I guess you can point to international play, but I have a hard time looking exclusively at a mid-year 7 game stretch. That said, this year's WJC will be very interesting to see if Zucker can lead in an offensive manner.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 12:03 AM
  #28
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,969
vCash: 500
I don't know - was Zucker rated as high as Coyle on top prospect lists like Hockey News and HF?

Surly Furious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 12:07 AM
  #29
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
I don't know - was Zucker rated as high as Coyle on top prospect lists like Hockey News and HF?
Sorry, not meant for you. It was meant for SoH and I didn't feel like quoting his whole post. Although I personally feel that Zucker should be higher on your list as well.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 12:12 AM
  #30
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
Sorry, not meant for you. It was meant for SoH and I didn't feel like quoting his whole post. Although I personally feel that Zucker should be higher on your list as well.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Well, I had Zucker at 3 before this weekend; maybe the shiny new toys got me distracted. We'll see how the next season shakes out.

Surly Furious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 01:17 AM
  #31
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
I guess you can disagree all you want but outside of Zucker's brief time at Denver none of those players have shown high-end goal scoring prowess. Granlund has scored just 21 goals in 82 regular season games, and he doesn't have the playing style of as goal scorer. Colton Gillies outscored Brett Bulmer in their respective pre-draft and post-draft seasons. That's not exactly a positive sign for Bulmer. Johan Larsson has never been projected as a great offensive talent, and he hasn't shown it yet either. And finally Zucker wasn't considered an offensive juggernaut pre-draft and hasn't been an offensive guy in World Junior play. He just has his great at Denver. So there you have it. Not a great outlook for becoming 25-35 goal NHLers. We have just two, Granlund and Coyle, who have a favorable outlook to be high-end guys at all, and neither have shown themselves to be big goal scorers. They're more of the Havlat mold of offensive production, and as we've seen, Havlats do not change a a team on their own. And you don't need generational talent to do that, just players that are a step above, like Gaborik was here.


The Blackhawks did. Even with some player with shortened seasons they've had back-to-back years of four 24+ goal scorers on their roster. They have 4 guys that can pot 30+ any given year.

The Bruins win was a rare breed. They may have won this time without the big scorers, but I'll continue to prefer going in with the high-end guys up front.



I would show you more teams, but I don't want to post 29 URLs. The point is that basically every NHL team could say that about their top-20.
I'm just curious about the complete and utter negativity. Russo has mentioned several times he's had scouts tell him Larsson has huge goal scoring potential and is seen by many scouts as having big-time offensive potential. Granlund could be the best Finnish offensive player since Selanne and I could go on-and-on.

You sound annoyed the Wild dealt Burns because honestly this isn't the time to be this negative. If you'd care to talk about players producing or not within their draft years I can name you Ovechkin, Malkin, Datsuk, Zetterberg and on who had little offense leading up to their respective drafts. With regards to Larsson and Granlund keep in mind they have been playing against men as 17-18 yr old kids in the 2nd and 3rd toughest leagues in the world but hey I'm not even going to bother trying to convince you.

I'm optimistic about this clubs future and don't need you to agree to make me feel good about my own beliefs.


Last edited by North Metro Peewees: 06-26-2011 at 01:22 AM.
North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 01:29 AM
  #32
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Squirts View Post
I'm optimistic about this clubs future and don't need you to agree to make me feel good about my own beliefs.
You mean that it wouldn't matter if I told you that your beliefs were nothing but made up words written down by a group of men in 325 AD?

Wars have been started over that!

*snickers*

I couldn't resist and this was very funny in my own head.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 01:41 AM
  #33
BLBarmada
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
I always heard that larsson was a very skilled player and I also got the impression that he was boom or bust because hes just too skilled to be a bottom 6 guy.

As for Zucker I love that pick, hes going to be a stud and I'm very impressed with what he did at Denver.

BLBarmada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 01:49 AM
  #34
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
I guess I just don't understand how you can so easily dismiss Zucker's success at Denver.
Seeing as I mention Zucker's rookie season twice, I don't see how I'm discounting that. What I'm doing is adding a little bit of perspective in that one great offensive year at Denver doesn't mean you can erase his other history, against some better competition I might add, as a checker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Squirts View Post
I'm just curious about the complete and utter negativity.

You sound annoyed the Wild dealt Burns because honestly this isn't the time to be this negative.
I'll just say that you're not getting my drift correctly because I've come away from this weekend happy that Burns was dealt and that the prospect group is improving. However, I'm not going head over heels over the stark reality that the cost to improve has been very heavy, far heavier than it could be, and the outlook is still very cloudy. This organization has got a long ways to go, and that's only if it does things right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLjunior View Post
I always heard that larsson was a very skilled player and I also got the impression that he was boom or bust because he's just too skilled to be a bottom 6 guy.
That sounds like the complete opposite scouting report. Larsson was projected to be a safer NHL bet because he can play a great 2-way game with leadership. He's only shown top scoring ability for 5 games--in the U-18 tournament prior to the draft. He may have it in him down the road, but that's a big question.


Last edited by State of Hockey: 06-26-2011 at 01:58 AM.
State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 02:26 AM
  #35
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,594
vCash: 500
I'm at a complete and utter loss at what cost that was too heavy for this team to improve?

Was it letting free agents walk? Agree there. What else? I don't see it.

As for Larsson they think he has some untapped offensive potential.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2011, 12:36 PM
  #36
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Seeing as I mention Zucker's rookie season twice, I don't see how I'm discounting that. What I'm doing is adding a little bit of perspective in that one great offensive year at Denver doesn't mean you can erase his other history, against some better competition I might add, as a checker.
I know you mentioned it, but it sounded like it was being dismissed. Maybe I misunderstood. His other history, as I recall, was a phenomenal game against Finland where he had 1 goal and numerous other chances, then hurt by a cheap shot. I guess, at this point, I'm putting more stock into an entire 35+ game season over 7 WJC games. I watched him play numerous times in college, and came away VERY impressed.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 12:28 AM
  #37
MNman
Registered User
 
MNman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 360
vCash: 500
I see a bit of Gaborik when I watch Zucker....he loves to float around the middle of the ice looking for that break-away pass.

I've seen him win puck battles along the boards, I've seen him on the ice during PK time (which confused the heck out of me, to be honest)

So I guess I do have high hopes for him turning into a 30+ goal scorer in the NHL. I know leading up to the draft and even shortly there-after, the talk was about Jason turning into a 3rd line winger, but I have hopes of him turning into a top-6 winger with high scoring potential.

MNman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:00 AM
  #38
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
I'm at a complete and utter loss at what cost that was too heavy for this team to improve?

Was it letting free agents walk? Agree there. What else? I don't see it.
A lot of good NHL talent lost for nothing during playoff misses. A top young talent like Burns being dealt. Bad trades like the Barker and Kobasew deals have hurt the list too. You'd think a team would have a much better list by now after three lottery seasons coupled with much of its better NHL talent not on the roster anymore.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:02 AM
  #39
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
A lot of good NHL talent lost for nothing during playoff misses. A top young talent like Burns being dealt. Bad trades like the Barker and Kobasew deals have hurt the list too. We could have a much better list by now when we've had three lottery seasons coupled with much of the better NHL talent not on the roster anymore.
The first statement, I can agree with.

Burns is what it is. I don't know how far along the negotiations were or anything. That's speculation.

Ummm, we've had two lottery seasons and netted Granlund and Brodin, so it's not that bad.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:05 AM
  #40
BuddyMcCormick
Registered User
 
BuddyMcCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
A lot of good NHL talent lost for nothing during playoff misses. A top young talent like Burns being dealt. Bad trades like the Barker and Kobasew deals have hurt the list too. You'd think a team would have a much better list by now after three lottery seasons coupled with much of its better NHL talent not on the roster anymore.
Tanking is bad juju man. For every Pittsburgh or Chicago there's an Islanders or Oilers. You also don't trade away FAs when you're in the playoff race.

BuddyMcCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:07 AM
  #41
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Burns is what it is. I don't know how far along the negotiations were or anything. That's speculation.

Ummm, we've had two lottery seasons and netted Granlund and Brodin, so it's not that bad.
You still have to put the Burns trade in your mind when you look at the list. You go, "Ooh, Coyle makes the list look much better", but then you have to realize that we don't have Burns anymore either! Whether it was a good or bad trade is irrelevant. His loss is a reason the list is better.

As a FYI, I rephrased that last sentence a bit. Granlund and Brodin are nice pieces to have, but you could say they're the natural results from a team that's been 9th and 10th-worst the past two years. What isn't natural is that the main result from a 12th-worst season is not on our list anymore. That's painful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyMcCormick View Post
You also don't trade away FAs when you're in the playoff race.
You do when you're not in it, like 2009-10. We got very little from that prime crop of UFAs.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:11 AM
  #42
BuddyMcCormick
Registered User
 
BuddyMcCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,962
vCash: 500
I will agree with you there. Just stating last year wasn't the time to trade away the FAs.

BuddyMcCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:14 AM
  #43
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyMcCormick View Post
I will agree with you there. Just stating last year wasn't the time to trade away the FAs.
True, and that's why I believe the mistake last year was made well before by carrying so many UFAs into a situation that had a good potential to end up that way.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:18 AM
  #44
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
You still have to put the Burns trade in your mind when you look at the list. You go, "Ooh, Coyle makes the list look much better", but then you have to realize that we don't have Burns anymore either! Whether it was a good or bad trade is irrelevant. His loss is a reason the list is better.
Very true. Which is why the impact of this trade cannot fully understood until Phillips and/or Coyle make it hear and how Seto performs on the Wild. If their performance makes the wild a better organization (and team in the long run) then the trade is good, regardless of how Burns does in San Jose.

Casper 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 05:57 AM.

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.