ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[seventieslord]

This sucks. I want, like, 6 players.

 

[overpass]

I see what he's talking about, another example being people with usernames dedicated to players(the most obvious example isn't alone either, my last username was no better), it is kind of funny. I have no issue with the rule at all, I even like it there, despite my own opinions that it does very little. Really, allusions, any allusions, are just as worse, and even worse yet is when people speculate on the value of said undrafted(I've seen it happen many times). If I remember right, someone(can't remember, and wouldn't say if I did) did that and it actually affected the draft.

Not that I'm saying to get rid of the rule, it's very helpful and makes things much simpler, especially when you get used to it, but I do think some are going overreacting when they see it. A nice PM or even a post on here to remind them is fine enough, even for a repeat offender(it really does take some getting used to, especially when posting bios and other evidence). No need to go crazy.

The real problem is when people comment is on who is available. If we allowed people to mention undrafted players and people started posting things like "I can't believe Bossy is available", that would really not work. IMO it's not great when people post things like "I can't believe there is a certain RW available" or even "Jagr's alright, but not the best RW available." I think those are worse than many of the undrafted player mentions we have had here.

But no naming undrafted players is a simple rule that is easy to police, so it works.

Way to stick with your pick, matsblue13. I think it's too high for Sundin, but you made the pick and now you can stand behind it. Nothing wrong with having your favorite player on your team. But I suggest you do some research on some players from earlier eras. It's the best part of this draft (says the guy with two 90s-00s players).

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

what is the old hippy saying

**** happens

Agreed. The first draft is difficult. I won't object if a mulligan is given but it is a risky precident.

Ps first time checking the draft at work

 

[BenchBrawl]

Whatever , I guess I'm alone so I'll have to deal with it.Not like it really concerns me with my draft position , but if I was next I would be furious if he picked who I wanted.

 

[thatguy17]

i agree with reen

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

But he clearly isn't learning anything if his first move is to jump on the guy in his username, a guy who would be available two or more rounds from now. There is a whole other world of hockey out there and it starts with research.

Which is completely fine. The ATD isn't necessarily about learning anything. It may be to you or me, but to someone else it can be something different.

And who's not to say he won't learning anything? We're barely 50 picks into a 1000 selection draft, which also happens to be his first. There's plenty of time to learn throughout the draft, and in future drafts. I know in my first draft I relied heavily on the way the previous few drafts went and went with familiar names, and I'd like to say I've learned a bit since then(although many may disagree ).

 

[Leaf Lander]

This sucks. I want, like, 6 players.

i am falling asleep

 

[BenchBrawl]

i agree with reen

Oh so I'm not alone
Majority still wins though I think matsblue13 is comfortable with Sundin anyway.

 

[Leaf Lander]

Oh so I'm not alone
Majority still wins though I think matsblue13 is comfortable with Sundin anyway.

ahh cool you made a friend

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

The real problem is when people comment is on who is available. If we allowed people to mention undrafted players and people started posting things like "I can't believe Bossy is available", that would really not work. IMO it's not great when people post things like "I can't believe there is a certain RW available" or even "Jagr's alright, but not the best RW available." I think those are worse than many of the undrafted player mentions we have had here.

But no naming undrafted players is a simple rule that is easy to police, so it works.

Way to stick with your pick, matsblue13. I think it's too high for Sundin, but you made the pick and now you can stand behind it. Nothing wrong with having your favorite player on your team. But I suggest you do some research on some players from earlier eras. It's the best part of this draft (says the guy with two 90s-00s players).

Yup, agree 100%. In a way, it's not unlike cell phones and driving laws, in the sense that it's intentions really aren't fulfilled at all, people just try and hide it better. But, of course, it's simple and therefore convenient. I just would also hope that people would maybe refrain from any sort of speculation and opinions regarding undrafteds until they're actually drafted(for instance, commenting that you think player A is better than player B only after they're both picked).

 

[hfboardsuser]

Which is completely fine. The ATD isn't necessarily about learning anything. It may be to you or me, but to someone else it can be something different.

The ATD can have different meaning to others- the want to win, the want to build a team of your favorites, the want to rebuild former real-life combinations. But none of those goals- and, indeed, none that I can possibly think of- necessitate reaching 100-some spots for a particular player and willfully weakening yourself in the process. For example, LL is one of the most predictable GMs in the Draft, and there's nothing wrong with that. But in a situation where a former Leaf isn't the best player on the board, he'll take the BPA and move on.

 

[BenchBrawl]

ahh cool you made a friend

I have plenty thanks for caring.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This sucks. I want, like, 6 players.

Trade your pick to me and I'll pick 1 right away. (Yes, I realize you're on the clock )

 

[arrbez]

no mulligans for me either

 

[Leaf Lander]

is anyone picking after i pick?

 

[Leaf Lander]

no mulligans for me either

your profile pic is a mulligan though so......

 

[seventieslord]

Fine, whatever. I need to just get off the john already as far as this pick goes, and let go of the fact that EVERYONE else I considered will be long gone in 50 picks, and probably in 15 picks.

I select King Clancy, probably the best offensive and overall defenseman left.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

As for a mulligan, I think we've basically killed that one ourselves. Right away I could've got on board with it, but since everyone's basically weighed in on the value of Mats Sundin, it probably shouldn't happen. If we were to mulligan him, everyone would know many peoples' opinions on where he should go, and exactly where matsblue13 picks in the next few rounds, along with the knowledge that he covets him enough to pick him in the 2nd round. Basically, matsblue13 almost certainly wouldn't get Sundin with a later pick, and almost certainly someone else, who maybe wanted Sundin, would pick him higher than intended.

Not that it matters, as I don't believe he'd accept the mulligan in the first place.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Fine, whatever. I need to just get off the john already as far as this pick goes, and let go of the fact that EVERYONE else I considered will be long gone in 50 picks, and probably in 15 picks.

I select King Clancy, probably the best offensive and overall defenseman left.

Biggest steal so far IMO (considering the premium on defensemen).

IMO, Clancy is one of 4 defensemen (along with Chelios, Park and Coffey) who have a case to be the 10th best defenseman of all-time.

He was just a little worse than Eddie Shore offensively, and at least one source has him as better defensively. (Though I've seen another source that appears to consider them as basically equal in that regards).

His big weakness is that he's a midget, even by the standards of the time, but it's not all that hard finding bruisers to protect him in the ATD.

With Clancy and Messier, you have another team that certainly isn't lacking leadership early on.

 

[Dreakmur]

no mulligans for me either

He told me he doesn't want to make a second pick. I think it's a dead issue now, so we can move on

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Before going the safe route and taking Sakic, I seriously flirted with the idea of taking Paul Coffey with my 1st pick and King Clancy with my second pick to put them on separate pairings and make "mobility from the back end" the theme for my team this year.

Sort of regret that I didn't, would've been fun.

 

[EagleBelfour]

IMO, Harvey, Lidstrom, and Chelios are equal defensively in most aspects of the game, 10/10s defensively, if you will. Harvey combines physical intimidation and discipline in a way the other two don't, however, which makes more valuable to some extent (the relative values of physical play and discipline in the ATD vary greatly from GM to GM, but we all agree they are factors).

I would agree that Harvey, Lidstrom and an undrafted defenceman are the three best defensive defenceman of All-Time, I'm just unsure if Chelios deserve to be talked in the same breath. I would need some convincing.

Yeah its definitely Lidstrom then Harvey then Chelios for the physical scale. I don't remember Harvey being thought of as a really physical guy - just when need be. Maybe I'm totally off base on that one but I thought he was a very cool cucumber out there.

I agree with that statement. But don't underestimate Harvey's aggression and physical abilities. He could be terrifying when he needed too. However, he was just so good at protecting the puck and playing the angle defensively that he didn't needed to be overly physical or nasty. He was indeed a very cool cucumber (I like the expression )

Brodeur is basically Glenn Hall with more playoff success, in my opinion, and should be ranked accordingly.

Take a couple of minutes to read the essay of HO on the Blackhawks of the 1960's. Their bad results in the playoffs is more the results of a bad supporting cast getting worst than the excellence of the Top-4 (Hull, Mikita, Hall, Pilote). I wouldn't say Glenn Hall elevated his play in the playoffs, but he was not worst.

And I would argue Hall was a better regular season goaltender.

Harvey has a rep as a cool cucumber, but that seems to be more because he got away with it (I believe it was sturminator who called Harvey's physical/dirty play "calculated"). There was an article written by star forward during Harvey's era criticizing the NHL for the prevalence of potentially life threatening spearing, and Harvey was listed as one of the main culprits (as was Gordie Howe).

(I'm replying to everything Harvey related, as I think I have a good grasp of who he was as a player)

Again, I agree with those statement. I didn't get any good quotes to write this down in his biography (If you have one, could you send it my way please? Thanks ), but I've read that in one occasion, he spears XXX, almost killing him. As I said earlier, Harvey could be nasty if he wanted to be. I like the words Sturm use to analyze Harvey's aggression. He was of the smartest player of his generation, so everything he does was 'calculated'. His nastiness too.

For some reason, I always think of Robinson as a more balanced guy than he was.

He definitely seems to be in the top tier defensively, while not quite as good offensively as I used to think of him.

100% Agree.

I used to think he was a better LW than Ted Lindsay! I don't go that far anymore (though I still think Lindsay tends to be overrated), but Kharalmov is definitely worthy of being the 3rd LW selected.

I had (and still have) him #3 among LW, but in the last few drafts, he's been one of the most criticize player in the entire draft. Some don't even have him in their top-80. I would really love to hear a good debate on Kharlamov.

I recently had Kharlamov in the LC draft. I picked him because I wanted to learn exactly how good he was, and I figured the best way to do that was to make a detailed biography on him.

After creating, I think, the most extensive Kharlamov bio in any ATD, I still have no idea how good he was.

If you rank him by the enecdotal evidence, he should be drafted with the likes of Maurice Richard. The quotes are definately very powerfully in his favour.

If you rank him by the statistical evidence, however, he should be drafted in the early 100s. He was a top end player in Russia, but he hardly dominated the scoring.

I've got no idea where the truth is, but I think it has to be somewhere in the middle, which means anywhere between 50 and 60 is a fair spot for him to go. I think Kharlamov is likely he best playmaking LW, so he's actually a pretty good place to start building a line.

I hope you plan to do some research on this one, and I look forward to whatever you can show about him.

Interresting.

At the same time, let's not post Lemieux making Ray Bourque look silly when you just took him 4th overall...

5th overall! But I forgive for making that mistake. Some people just don't like to follow ATD cannon! Those basterds ....

No, you're right....

Why should I wonder why he went in the mid 40's when he was ranked #100 by THN. I guess we're all smarter and do more research than a bunch of published professionals...

I would need an explanation on why a certain goaltender is on the list before taking the Hockey News list at face value. I'm not saying it's not worth discussion, but I wouldn't be surprise to learn that they were far more discussion going into the process of our own HOH list than the Hockey News one.

The Ottawa Senators are pleased to select

Chris Pronger, D

I thought I had a chance to get him at #77 if I decided to take a defenceman. He definitely bring the tools that few defenceman have. There's a few defenceman I would take ahead of him without thinking twice though.

EDIT: Seems I had no shot afterall

It actually didn't take too long (about EB's estimate of 2 minutes).

I don't what's the discussion about, and I don't understand why I'm included in it!

I select King Clancy, probably the best offensive and overall defenseman left.

I don't even know why you were hesitating. If you wanted a defenceman, you had to take King Clancy. And it was true 3 defenceman ago.

------

I remember 4-5 drafts ago, a GM called something like Bucky King of Donair. He selected at #200 a defenceman that dosn't even get picked in the MLD. No one offered him a mulligan.

Not that I would disagree with giving him one. I really don't care honestly. The guy decided to stand by his pick, so let's move on. I'm only hoping he will scan through the last draft before making a selection next time.

 

[seventieslord]

Biggest steal so far IMO (considering the premium on defensemen).

IMO, Clancy is one of 4 defensemen (along with Chelios, Park and Coffey) who have a case to be the 10th best defenseman of all-time.

He was just a little worse than Eddie Shore offensively, and at least one source has him as better defensively. (Though I've seen another source that appears to consider them as basically equal in that regards).

His big weakness is that he's a midget, even by the standards of the time, but it's not all that hard finding bruisers to protect him in the ATD.

With Clancy and Messier, you have another team that certainly isn't lacking leadership early on.

so... this was your guy, then?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would agree that Harvey, Lidstrom and an undrafted defenceman are the three best defensive defenceman of All-Time, I'm just unsure if Chelios deserve to be talked in the same breath. I would need some convincing.

You're forgetting Scott Stevens - just as good as Nick Lidstrom at his defensive peak in my opinion and many others. I think Chelios and Stevens were both better PKers than Lidstrom, though he was excellent, as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

so... this was your guy, then?

Didn't I make that obvious enough?

There are other excellent defensemen available, some of them likely quite close to what Clancy brings. But Clancy was the BDA for some time, in my opinion. When sturm said Coffey was clearly the BDA, I thought to myself "no he isn't. There's definitely an argument for Clancy."

I hope you make a really good bio for him so we can get a better idea of just how good he was in his own zone.