damacles1156
Registered User
- Feb 5, 2010
- 21,668
- 1,318
If you aim for a player thinking that they have potential to be a top six player, but they end up being a bottom six guy instead like Trevor Lewis then you at least get something there, if barely. If you aim for a bottom line player, however, and they slip slide in expectations then what do you have to show for it?
My thinking is that you look for guys that you think have the potential to be the best available at the time of selection. If he pans out then awesome you get what you intended and while it would suck to miss the payoff is much higher.
Perhaps it's a mistake on the part of Christian Ruutu, but he really shouldn't have said anything so concrete then.
There's nothing wrong in throwing out some canned ham response like: "We're not sure what role he's going to ultimately fulfill at the NHL level, but we believe he's a very talented player with a promising future and are looking forward to seeing what he can do as a member of our organization."
You're focused on the top six position, but best player available is the best at whatever position it happens to be, right?
Just to throw a name out a name out there as an example, but if Thatcher Demko happened to have the potential to be a legitimate #1 starter then regardless of how set we are in net could he net a better return than a 3rd line player?
I'm probably just going to drop the pursuit of this line of thought, but it just *really* feels wrong to not aspire for top talent in the 1st round of the draft and settling for what might be considered a safe pick. Especially late in the 1st round when it's almost a 2nd round pick, as you mentioned before.
Sure which is why I was shocked the Kings passed on Roland Mckeown(my best player at 29 pick).
But it's why Futa/Lombardi make the big bucks.