Gresch04
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2009
- 2,127
- 1,939
I promise I was curious. That goal was one of those things that I wasn’t sure about.
Totally get it. I was just offering a theory as to why people didn’t get that you were curious.
I promise I was curious. That goal was one of those things that I wasn’t sure about.
If I were to predict our pick I'd wager somebody that few people are expecting, as has been Gorton's MO so far. I don't wanna say "off the board" but probably not what the mock says.
That can go wrong at times but we would have taken Pettersson first overall and people would have hated it so who knows?
I think people only freaked out about Kravtsov because Wahlstrom was right there but not even a year later -at best- that could go either way and I'm being nice to Wahlstrom.I've heard this too but some swear they would have taken Makar (who was my dude before the draft.) I'd take either.
They also were hot and heavy after Clayton Keller - the outrage in here if they took him at 4 would have been classic. We got a glimpse of it after the Kravstov pick, but this would have been even worse/better depending on your POV.
I think people only freaked out about Kravtsov because Wahlstrom was right there but not even a year later -at best- that could go either way and I'm being nice to Wahlstrom.
The draft expertise (or lack thereof) in here can be really fun. I can't imagine the handwaving the presumptive Wahlstrom moms would be doing right now.I've heard this too but some swear they would have taken Makar (who was my dude before the draft.) I'd take either.
They also were hot and heavy after Clayton Keller - the outrage in here if they took him at 4 would have been classic. We got a glimpse of it after the Kravstov pick, but this would have been even worse/better depending on your POV.
On draft day I think people would have taken Wahlstrom 99-1 and what is it now? 60-40 Kravtsov? 70-30?Yes you are, way too nice.
The draft expertise (or lack thereof) in here can be really fun. I can't imagine the handwaving the presumptive Wahlstrom moms would be doing right now.
I had a pet theory that a ton of people liked Dominik Bokk mostly because his name was both easy to spell and fun to say.
In here? like 95-5 Kravstov.On draft day I think people would have taken Wahlstrom 99-1 and what is it now? 60-40 Kravtsov? 70-30?
On draft day I think people would have taken Wahlstrom 99-1 and what is it now? 60-40 Kravtsov? 70-30?[/QUOTE]
99-1
I still think Bokk is a very good prospect and 25 was lower than I would have taken him.The draft expertise (or lack thereof) in here can be really fun. I can't imagine the handwaving the presumptive Wahlstrom moms would be doing right now.
I had a pet theory that a ton of people liked Dominik Bokk mostly because his name was both easy to spell and fun to say.
Ok? And I explained that I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. I also stated that my opinion was that Hank should have kept the 5 hole closed there, but that doesn’t mean the goal was all on him. Kind of a “hindsight is 20-20” thing. Apparently, you can’t state an opinion after a question. Maybe I could have worded it better, but I don’t see why it’s a big deal.Your post didn’t come off as a question that you were curious about. Came off as a sasrcastoc rhetorical question and then a criticism. Just saying.
I mean, sure, but for most people (like me) he's some rando from Germany. If his name had been Jan Heineyholen you wouldn't have heard shit about that dude.I still think Bokk is a very good prospect and 25 was lower than I would have taken him.
Hey, Germans are supreme athletes.I mean, sure, but for most people (like me) he's some rando from Germany. If his name had been Jan Heineyholen you wouldn't have heard **** about that dude.
In additionYou mean rather than having the 1st outright like we do now?