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

Value of Mikael Granlund

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2011, 03:18 AM
  #51
Caior89
Registered User
 
Caior89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Brazil
Posts: 1,461
vCash: 500
I like to talk about prospects too and some really have a nice future. But i dont take a prediction in favor of something already proved.

The fact is that this is just hope, and there is no better way to keep hockey fans interested in their team getting better than prospects and dreaming with what they can become someday. Thats why they are so overrated here and in any other sports as well.

This will never change.


Last edited by Caior89: 08-09-2011 at 03:23 AM.
Caior89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:03 AM
  #52
Up7Yours
Registered User
 
Up7Yours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 50
ESPN top 10 prospects ranking
1. Brayden Schenn
2. Ryan Johansen
3. Gabriel Landeskog
4. Adam Larsson
5. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
6. David Rundblad
7. Mikael Granlund
8. Nino Niederreiter
9. Vladimir Tarasenko
10. Chris Kreider

Up7Yours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:37 AM
  #53
Foxlockbox
:laugh: is my period
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
Any quotes to prove that?
Not a dircect quote, but if you take an honest answer GM Chuck Fletcher said something like this when asked about Coyle in the trade "He was the major piece, I wouldn't have this trade any other way if he wasn't in it".

Foxlockbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:46 AM
  #54
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Russo did make a tweet about that.

I remember posting it in the Burns/Seto trade thread aswell.

Fel 96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 05:46 AM
  #55
Foxlockbox
:laugh: is my period
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,918
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fNnv...ailpage#t=174s

Even better than quote.

Foxlockbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 06:33 AM
  #56
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Up7Yours View Post
ESPN top 10 prospects ranking
1. Brayden Schenn
2. Ryan Johansen
3. Gabriel Landeskog
4. Adam Larsson
5. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
6. David Rundblad
7. Mikael Granlund
8. Nino Niederreiter
9. Vladimir Tarasenko
10. Chris Kreider
I don't understand how the hell Larsson is #4, above RNH, Landeskog AND Huberdeau. It has only been a few months since the draft

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 07:46 AM
  #57
thomast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,676
vCash: 500
Hockeyprospectus thinks that Granlund is best prospect atm, and pronman thinks that he will project safely above average 1st line c. But has potential 2 b perennial all-star player. If rangers want similar player to Granlund, There is barkov jr. Who Plays smart, and mature game like Granlund. Isn't offensively AS gifted AS Granlund but has size and are excellent at the own zone. He's mix of Mikko koivu and datsyuk with Slightly Better offensive skills than koivu. That guy could play at fel atm and He's 15 few weeks off 16 but jr. Hockey Fits Better for developement. I followed Granlund sinne he was 14-15, this guy is AS talented. Last Finnish prospect that i liked this much was Granlund, didn'T like armia, Rajala. Barkov is for 2013 draft. I don't see in Minnesota tho theyre stacked with centers.

There was rumours that NYI and NYR had Granlund very high at the draft, isles passed. I actualy think rangers tried to draft him but were 1 spot too late. Couple points at standing's . But hockey state like Minnesota needs and deserves high-end talents which are exciting to watch, and Granlund can make plays that i haven't seen in NHL or even hockey ever. He's something very special. Like i said on other thread, in some shifts he looks like crosby passing, dangles and dekes like datsyuk or some shifts hits like clutterbuck. Not saying he gonna end Crosby or datsyuk tier player.


Last edited by thomast: 08-09-2011 at 08:13 AM.
thomast is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 09:05 AM
  #58
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
I don't see how the first point is relevant. He's still a prospect.



You get what I'm saying - Granlund is ridiculously skilled, but he isn't perfect. He could easily flop. There are tons of highly-touted prospects who have completely failed at the NHL level. I'm not saying that's what will happen to Granlund (quite frankly, I disagree vehemently with your comparisons, but I do believe he'll be a very, very good 1st line playmaker - Sake Koivu like), but until he proves he is an Eric Staal, Anze Kopitar, or Mike Richards, he isn't going to be looked at or valued as such.



His 'career thus far' consists of 0 seasons in a North American league.

SM-Liiga is a competitive league, and while Granlund has put up very good numbers, it doesn't really mean all that much until he plays well at the NHL level.



Any quotes to prove that?

I'm not saying that's not true, but I'd like to see an indication of it - Coyle is a good prospect, but Setoguchi is a 23 year old 20+ goal scorer, and a player who put 30 goals as a 22 year old.



I get that. Doesn't mean he's that valuable to any other team, which is the vibe I've picked up in this thread.
While there are plenty of people who overvalue prospects on this board, that doesn't justify your reverse logic. Would you expect us to trade Granlund for Wolski? Your logic says we should because Granlund hasn't proven anything and any guesses and projections about how he might do in the NHL are worthless.

The value of Granlund is extremely high, but it also comes with considerable risk. He's a prospect, so he might not ever reach his ceiling. However, if he does reach his ceiling, he'll be part of that elite tier that is impossible to get any way other than drafting. If he reaches his ceiling, he'll be more valuable than the entire Rangers' roster.

The odds of him fully reaching that ceiling are not very good. I'm not going to be delusional about that. The level he's most likely to turn out as is an above average 1C. His most likely NHL play will be a poor man's Datsyuk. There's a very slim chance that he busts. The chances of him busting are notably less than the chances of him reaching his ceiling.

The fact is, Minnesota cannot risk moving Granlund, then have him reach his ceiling with another team. That would be devastating to the fans (who love Granlund) and to the management staff (who would likely lose their jobs over such a disaster) unless we received value back equal to his ceiling, rather than some mythical assumption "anonymous Rangers fan X" came up with. We were asked what it would take for us to move Granlund, and that's what it would take. Do we think that the Rangers would ever agree to such a deal? No. That would be stupid. As the Rangers GM I wouldn't even consider it for a second. This is why it's so rare to see prospects of this tier moved. Schenn was the centerpiece in a deal that brought in Mike Richards on a career length contract at a great price. Granlund's ceiling is higher than Schenn's while Schenn's floor is higher than Granlund's. If you want Granlund, start with a deal the caliber of which got Schenn, then add.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 10:06 AM
  #59
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,915
vCash: 500
The trajectory for this kid is insane. He's putting up numbers that dwarf most 17, 18 year olds in the Finnish league. He was dominant in the WC as well. He's got a lot of charisma and star power.

Swing on by that "what do you think of the Wild" thread...most people say we are boring and don't have any star players. Well this is a star player. Sure you can say "he's just a prospect" like I guess you could say Crosby's "just a hockey player".

Lots of us said, you'd be buying extremely high. He's coming off a championship with his SM-Liiga team and a championship in the Worlds for Finland. Kind of like asking "what's the value of Toews?" right after he wins the Olympic gold and Stanley Cup. Massive overpayment.

Marc Staal doesn't get me going for Granlund. Add a 1st, still not there. Staal + two 1sts, getting closer.

The problem is, we've seen AJ Thelen, Benoit Pouliot, James Sheppard, and Tyler Cuma completely flop as 1st round picks. We could go five years without drafting a kid as talented as Granlund. Hell, we went seven years after drafting Burns before getting another top level talent prospect.

That's why most of us would rather keep Granlund, unless it's the farm in return. Elite talent that joins the roster in 2012 versus maybe a 1 in 10 chance to draft the same level of talent who won't join the roster until say 2015 at the earliest? Does that make any sense?

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 10:10 AM
  #60
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
I know this is the Wild forum, but come on.

Staal/McIlrath/2 1sts for Mikael Granlund? For a prospect? Yeah, I get that there is no incentive in moving him for 2nd rate pieces, but no team would move Staal alone for Granlund, let alone adding a good prospect and 2 1sts.
That's exactly the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Wild fans are being a bit delusional over Granlund's value. Granlund is no Brayden Schenn, and LA needed to add a healthy amount with Schenn to get a 2-way, 60-70 point center--not a star offensive player by any means.

The Rangers would clearly have enough value-wise to grab Granlund, but they don't have that great young player that other teams wish to trade for. A prospect/prospect swap isn't happening, so the two teams just aren't a good trade fit for each other.
And that's also exactly the point. There are players I would trade Granlund for and as the LA deal shows, the top prospect in hockey is not worth the same as a good NHLer on a reasonable deal for the next decade. Honestly, he shouldn't be. The issue with giving up Granlund is that he's a player to build around for the next 6-15 years (especially with what he has done to raise his stock since being drafted) and unless Minnesota gets someone better that they want to build around (like a Mike Richards if you think that's the case), why trade? It's not like the Wild are making a run for the Stanley Cup this season and should sell the farm.

Hopefully this makes sense for future Granlund trade proposals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danccchan View Post
I don't understand how the hell Larsson is #4, above RNH, Landeskog AND Huberdeau. It has only been a few months since the draft
A player from a NYC team is up there on a list by ESPN? Shocker.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:38 PM
  #61
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Up7Yours View Post
ESPN top 10 prospects ranking
1. Brayden Schenn
2. Ryan Johansen
3. Gabriel Landeskog
4. Adam Larsson
5. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
6. David Rundblad
7. Mikael Granlund
8. Nino Niederreiter
9. Vladimir Tarasenko
10. Chris Kreider
We already went over this at the Rangers board. This list is the biggest crock of ****. It's ESPN first of all, they don't know jack-**** about hockey. Kreider doesn't belong on this list, yes that comes from MANY Ranger fans. The fact that 3 2011 draftees are on this list 3,4, 5 is retarded. Larsson at #4, LOL. This list is a crock. Not to say Granlund isn't good, but on a hockey scouting website, he is probably top 15. The fact that Erixon isn't on this list says how retarded this list is.

PS: and yea, Buddy, I stole your pro pic

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:43 PM
  #62
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
There is absolutely no incentive for us to move Granlund unless it is a massive over payment. The last time we had a prospect this good was when we had Gaborik.
So what you are saying basically Granlund will score 5 goals in a game against the Rangers, become very injury prone, and when he turns 28, he'll sign as a UFA with the Rangers. We may have to wait 10 years, but sounds good to me.

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:53 PM
  #63
BuddyMcCormick
Registered User
 
BuddyMcCormick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HagelinForPresident View Post
PS: and yea, Buddy, I stole your pro pic
I'm not sure whether to be furious or flattered. As I did make it myself.

BuddyMcCormick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 04:54 PM
  #64
Wildfish
Registered User
 
Wildfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Siberia, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
I get that. Doesn't mean he's that valuable to any other team, which is the vibe I've picked up in this thread.
You ask fans from a poor team that is starved for offensive players how much they think their super blue chip prospect is worth and you're surprised that they think he walks on water and is damn near priceless?

Of course most Wild fans are going to over-value him by a lot, some fans will ridiculously over value him. They're "fans"!

Fletch was quoted as saying the Burns deal wouldn't have happened without Coyle. Believe it or not, who cares? But you could easily find it with a minimal amount of effort.

Wildfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 05:01 PM
  #65
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyMcCormick View Post
I'm not sure whether to be furious or flattered. As I did make it myself.
you should be flattered. as i said yesterday, it is a ****ing epic picture. He is also my favorite non-Ranger prospect. We're gonna make this **** go viral my man! Ranger fans and Wild fans, unite!

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 05:58 PM
  #66
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 50
The whole Fletcher Coyle quote thing...
"the deal doesn't get done without Coyle" =/= "coyle is the main asset in the trade"

The same thing with the Barker/Leddy trade only from the Hawks perspective...Leddy wasn't the main acquisition for the Hawks--they were looking for a veteran blue liner who could be counted on for their cup run. They realized he was a rental so they wanted to be sure they had a prospect to go along with him. Did they mean "we were going to settle for no one but Leddy coming back as the prospect"? Maybe, but Johnsson was still the main asset going to the Hawks.

Don't kid yourself--no matter how good Coyle ends up being, he wasn't the main piece. (even if he was the deal-making piece.)

look at it this way...Walk into best buy and decide to buy or not to buy a 60" LCD. Does it come with the 3D glasses? Deal doesn't get done without the glasses. Not the main part of the purchase, however.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 06:02 PM
  #67
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Well, at least, we know GMCF is high on him.

Fel 96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 09:53 PM
  #68
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
The whole Fletcher Coyle quote thing...
"the deal doesn't get done without Coyle" =/= "coyle is the main asset in the trade"

Don't kid yourself--no matter how good Coyle ends up being, he wasn't the main piece. (even if he was the deal-making piece.)

look at it this way...Walk into best buy and decide to buy or not to buy a 60" LCD. Does it come with the 3D glasses? Deal doesn't get done without the glasses. Not the main part of the purchase, however.
I don't see how you could say that.

This deal doesn't get done without Charlie Coyle...

So San Jose says, hey, we're not going to throw in Coyle because he's our only prospect...then what? Fletcher wanted Coyle to come back period.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 10:25 PM
  #69
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
I don't see how you could say that.

This deal doesn't get done without Charlie Coyle...

So San Jose says, hey, we're not going to throw in Coyle because he's our only prospect...then what? Fletcher wanted Coyle to come back period.
yes Fletcher wanted Coyle come back. Who's disputing that? I'm saying he wasn't the ****ing best player coming back. It wasn't a Burns for coyle + negotiable + negotiable trade. It sounds like some people are under the impression that a top six forward was negotiable but Fletcher reeeally wanted that 1-2 years out (at best) prospect for the proven talent of burns. That's pretty stupid. Coyle wasn't the most valuable asset given us by the sharks in that deal. he just wasn't. Period.

Then what? Then Fletcher fields offers from other teams until he finds something that really piques his interest or he negotiates with the sharks for value similar to what he got only parsed differently. He didn't have to trade at all. I imagine he was the one approached and in the stronger bargaining position.

He could have easily said "This deal doesn't get done without the 1st." and it would be just as true.

Okay, you can have coture + a first + a second for Burns. You think he would have demanded Coyle?

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 10:30 PM
  #70
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
I don't see how you could say that.

This deal doesn't get done without Charlie Coyle...

So San Jose says, hey, we're not going to throw in Coyle because he's our only prospect...then what? Fletcher wanted Coyle to come back period.
Say you want to buy a PS3 so you can play Resistance 3 (feel free to get it for me for my birthday). Now you need to get the wife/girlfriend/prostitute-you-pay-so-you're-not-so-lonely to buy in on the idea or it's a no-go. So you tell her that it's a Blu-Ray player so she'll get a lot of use out of it too. You also promise to buy her some earrings to even things out, and she agrees to the purchase.

Now, this is just like the Burns trade. The two of you are getting Resistance 3 (Setoguchi), a Blu-Ray player (Coyle), and earrings (28th overall pick). The deal doesn't get done without Coyle, but the centerpiece of the trade is Setoguchi in this case.

I'm not in a position to say that Setoguchi was the main piece in the trade. I'm just saying that Fletcher's statement can still be true, even if Coyle isn't the main piece.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 11:39 PM
  #71
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
yes Fletcher wanted Coyle come back. Who's disputing that?
You are.

Quote:
I'm saying he wasn't the ****ing best player coming back. It wasn't a Burns for coyle + negotiable + negotiable trade.
No one is saying Coyle was the best player coming back but he HAD to be part of the deal. There is a difference.

Fletcher wanted Coyle to come back or the deal was dead in the waters. Setoguchi + 1st and a 2nd? Nope. Not going to happen.

Quote:
It sounds like some people are under the impression that a top six forward was negotiable but Fletcher reeeally wanted that 1-2 years out (at best) prospect for the proven talent of burns. That's pretty stupid. Coyle wasn't the most valuable asset given us by the sharks in that deal. he just wasn't. Period.
No but it was what Fletcher wanted back the most from the deal.

Quote:
Okay, you can have coture + a first + a second for Burns. You think he would have demanded Coyle?
Couture was probably never in the discussion.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 08:10 AM
  #72
dempster333
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Ireland
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
The fact of the matter is, no matter what Fletcher says, that any piece of any trade is negotiable. You can swap out any part of a trade for a part in which you think has equal or greater value and the trade still gets done.

dempster333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 09:18 AM
  #73
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
You are.



No one is saying Coyle was the best player coming back but he HAD to be part of the deal. There is a difference.

Fletcher wanted Coyle to come back or the deal was dead in the waters. Setoguchi + 1st and a 2nd? Nope. Not going to happen.



No but it was what Fletcher wanted back the most from the deal.



Couture was probably never in the discussion.
I know Couture was probably never in the discussion (or seriously, at any rate)--I was making a point: A deal with the sharks from our perspective wouldn't hinge on Coyle necessarily. You are doing the whole HF Board thing and seriously overrating unproven prospects as compared to roster players.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 09:19 AM
  #74
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dempster333 View Post
The fact of the matter is, no matter what Fletcher says, that any piece of any trade is negotiable. You can swap out any part of a trade for a part in which you think has equal or greater value and the trade still gets done.
This is only true if there are parts that are believed to have equal or greater value. In the case of San Jose, I would argue the only "part" they had with equal or greater value than Coyle (excluding Setoguchi who was already in the deal) was Couture. He's untouchable from San Jose's perspective. You might be able to argue one of their D-men would also have that value, but it seems unlikely they'd part with one.

The deal doesn't get done without Coyle, therefore the deal doesn't get done with Coyle.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 09:23 AM
  #75
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
I know Couture was probably never in the discussion (or seriously, at any rate)--I was making a point: A deal with the sharks from our perspective wouldn't hinge on Coyle necessarily. You are doing the whole HF Board thing and seriously overrating unproven prospects as compared to roster players.
Now you're disagreeing with Fletcher, who made the deal. I think I'll take his opinion over yours. Coyle might not have been the centerpiece of the deal, but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate and say that he wasn't important to the deal. If the GM says the deal doesn't get done without Coyle, I believe the GM. As I've illustrated earlier, I know that doesn't necessarily mean Coyle was the whole purpose of the trade, it just means literally what it says, "the deal doesn't get done without Charlie Coyle."

squidz* 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 05:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.