Oscar The Grouch
Registered User
I'm always weary of big kids dominated junior...
-
Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
NHL Entry Draft Future Draft Watch
- Thread starter RAFI BOMB
- Start date
I'm always weary of big kids dominated junior...
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
you including 16 year olds in that?
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
I think he might end up being a bit of a riser in the draft. He's tearing it up in the W this year and he's doing it often with less than the best linemates. He never takes a shift off and plays a solid 200 ft game.
He's not quite as physical (yet) but I get Travis Konecny vibes from this guy. He'll need to fill out but in 2-4 years that shouldn't be a problem. Wouldn't be surprised to see him go somewhere in the 18-32 range in the draft. Fun player to watch.
Senovision
Registered User
This goalie was pretty solid in the WJC.
Petteri Rimpinen, 18, remains undrafted, but NHL teams will surely give him a second look come June after his outstanding performance in Ottawa. Playing every game for Finland, the Kiekko-Espoo product has made 202 saves – more than any netminder besides Latvian hero Linards Feldbergs (210) – and posted a tournament-leading 93.9 save percentage to go with his 2.12 GAA.
Petteri Rimpinen, 18, remains undrafted, but NHL teams will surely give him a second look come June after his outstanding performance in Ottawa. Playing every game for Finland, the Kiekko-Espoo product has made 202 saves – more than any netminder besides Latvian hero Linards Feldbergs (210) – and posted a tournament-leading 93.9 save percentage to go with his 2.12 GAA.
PlayersLtd
Registered User
On F yes, I am similarly cautious but that's when players are masking bad skating and hockey iq with size. Not on D and not Keaton Verhoeff. I watch him a lot and he is a monster. Good skater, very smart player, great positionally, competes hard. He is good in nearly all aspects of the game and not in a flashy way which counts for a lot in my books. He is just solid all around and the offensive awareness is a bonus. He plays like a stay at home D with a surprising offensive toolbox.
It should be noted that on Victoria he is not leaned on as the top RD as Nate Misskey gets a lot of the top assignments. That's not a knock at all, just illustrates Victoria's depth. We have the best D in the WHL, possibly the CHL. That has allowed Verhoeff to thrive this year.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
Don't draft any goalie or D-men, we need FORWARDS
They should sell at the deadline (but won't happen), pile up assets and try to draft some talent. I know it shouldn't be this way but have to rebuild the turd that Pierre Dorion has built.
Choose who you keep. Stutzle, Sanderson, Pinto, Greig, Kleven, Ostapchuk are still young. Trade everyone else.
Normally I wouldn't say trade Brady or Chabot but these guys are getting too old, they need to make the playoffs now for their own good. Batherson is borderline too. He could be traded too I guess
Unless they start scoring and winning seriously in the next few weeks, I think we'll be forced to go through a retool.
They should sell at the deadline (but won't happen), pile up assets and try to draft some talent. I know it shouldn't be this way but have to rebuild the turd that Pierre Dorion has built.
Choose who you keep. Stutzle, Sanderson, Pinto, Greig, Kleven, Ostapchuk are still young. Trade everyone else.
Normally I wouldn't say trade Brady or Chabot but these guys are getting too old, they need to make the playoffs now for their own good. Batherson is borderline too. He could be traded too I guess
Unless they start scoring and winning seriously in the next few weeks, I think we'll be forced to go through a retool.
PlayersLtd
Registered User
Don't disagree with the potential for a retool but to suggest it's because of age is attributing the deficiencies in the roster incorrectly. Brady is only 25...
We are a top 5 young team in the NHL, a full two years below the average age of the last 5 cup winners and that is inflated by two players that are in their twilight years. Trade because of age and we will find ourself looking for experience.
Also, Drake is not a consistent player for us but he is still on an excellent contract for a 70 pt player. You don't trade that unless it's because his value is so high you can't ignore it.
Other than getting our starting vezina calibre goalie back, what this team needs is a fast, skilled finisher that can find chemistry with Stutzle. That will stabilize the lines and allow us to tool around the edges. That isn't to say it solves everything but we are more or less stuck with what we have shy of a mini rebuild (like NYR in 2019?). However, the team has shown enough flashes that we should not be impulsive in that sense, we just need health and to lean into our pro scouting and win a trade.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
I never said it was BECAUSE of age. What is the other option? Trade Stutzle and Sanderson?
This is Tkachuk 7th season, Chabot 8th season... they haven't sniffed the playoffs yet. Sincerely, I'd ask for a trade if I was them so maybe we should move them before they ask it themselves and damage their value.
Matthews and Marner are in their 9th season... imagine
I don't know if people realize but Karlsson and Duchene were 27 in 2017-18 (the season when the rebuild started), Stone, Dzingel and Pageau were 25. Ceci was 24. Hoffman was 28 and Brassard was 30.
We were a young team 3 years ago, we're not young anymore. Tkachuk will turn 26, Batherson is about to turn 27, Chabot 28. Giroux, Perron and Jensen at the end of the road, we have a few young players and not much coming in the next 3-4 years. We should be entering the team's peak, and frankly I am less and less convinced there is contender potential.
Agreed but maybe we should trade him while he has value, IF you determine that this team is not going anywhere. 21 games before the trade deadline. If I am the GM, I'd need the team to show me an impressive record, 10-9-2 would NOT CUT IT.
I don't know, this team should be primed to do "some damage" but seriously, we're 19-18-3 mid-season so unless there's a major turnaround in the 2nd part of the season, a retool might not be avoidable.
I also don't want to be a team that relies on Vezina level goaltending to barely make the playoffs every season. This is not enough.
PlayersLtd
Registered User
The reality is that we are largely stuck with what we have because of how hard it is to win a hockey trade. I know you'll disagree, but in the real world of Staios' job I think hoping for the best is a viable option, partially due to a lack of other options. But it's not blind hope. This team is good and has pieces, we just aren't consistent and haven't fine tuned our identity. I refuse to believe a team with as much skill as we have can't pull it together and we have seen teams like STL do it with a similar roster composition, we see Calgary right now doing it with worse.
We can't lose sight of the fact that we were a top team before Ullmark's injury. I am really down on this team today but I don't think you can throw the baby out with the bathwater right now and age certainly wouldn't be a reason.
We still have two years before we are comparable to the average age of the last 5 cup winners and in that time our three oldest players are likely gone while younger one's come up. Yes our core is going to get older but this can be seen as a good thing as it pertains to our top two players (Stu and Sando are still growing) and possibly a good thing as it pertains to the rest.
We are not talking about players entering their 30's, we only have one of those that your argument applies to and that's Chabot and he's still only 27. The others are still multiple years away from diminishing returns. This is all independent of contract windows, that's a different argument.
Yes, maybe Bath is the right move because of value. You have to consider that kind of shake up, I agree with you there. But it comes with massive risk for obvious reasons, good player on a great contract. So you do it if you believe you need to be bold. I know you subscribe to that type of management and it has worked well for other teams in the past (see Tampa, Florida, Vegas etc...) but it has also failed for others (CBJ, NYI, BUF etc...).
So to me it's a question of management philosophy but personally I see your approach as playing roulette. Do you make a bold move and shake it up, or do you hope a team that has shown flashes eventually figures things out. I respect the cut throat nature of shaking it up, but I'm not convinced it's worth the risk, yet. The pain could be very deep should we change course to the extent you are advocating.
I don't think we were necessarily relying on vezina goaltending, thats oversimplifying. We were playing good hockey and the team was very complete when Ullmark was in. We just need to cement that identity so that the play does not change so dramatically when a back up is called upon. And yes, we need a better back up but it's a bit of a chicken or the egg thing. Teams like Vegas and Vancouver (I'm talking about peak Vancouver last year and this one), Washington now and Tampa do not change how they play when their back up is called upon. The brand is the same, night in night out. In my estimation one way you get this (mainly on D) is by playing that way with passable goaltending for long enough that it becomes second nature. You know who you are, you trust each other top to bottom so that when an inferior goalie goes in he is insulated by good play and doesn't become exposed. Coaching is huge in this regard to and I think Green is on the right path.
We obviously are not there. Last night was a complete relapse into DJ era hockey, it was scary. But there is very clear improvement to the consistency and identity of this team and you can't ignore the promising signs. Some of our losses early on (Vegas, Colorado, NYR...) were really strong games. We have also allowed Forsberg to play dramatically better on several nights compared to last year.
So all that to say, do you give up on that and be bold or do you stick to it and hope you're seeing good honest, repeatable and sustainable improvements? Part of me feels that if we stick to it and squeak into the playoffs the floodgates will open for this team's progression. Part of you feels its time to alter course.
I will say one thing- during our winning streak you were as positive about this team as anyone. You had turned a major corner on the state of the team. GM's have to operate without the emotional peaks and valleys and step back and look at the big picture. I'm not sure that you've been doing that, you're more impulsive. I'm not saying its wrong because bold can be good, but it's not guaranteed that it's right.
