Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • SDS pinned this topic
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, spndnchz said:

Really not enthused this year. Not about the prospects but the process. Yeah, nobody can change it, just not as entertaining this way. 

Ya, I'm thinking we'll see less trade actively than normal. 

Edited by Thorny
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, dudacek said:

A GM (Kekalainen, I think) said he expects more trades after the draft.

Always love this. It's bump-back-the-timeline-for-activity SZN.

Maybe it'll have merit coming from a GM, usually it's the insiders and they are looking to keep up those views. 

Edited by Thorny
Posted
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Always love this. It's bump-back-the-timeline-for-activity SZN.

Maybe it'll have merit coming from a GM, usually it's the insiders and they are looking to keep up those views. 

Yeah, I count 11 trades already. Things are happening.

Posted

Jake Sanderson is a heckuva prospect who will eat up a lot of minutes against the other team's best players.

Anyone upset with us drafting him is thinking only about last year's team, not the teams when this year's picks will actually matter.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
16 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

So... Sanderson?  I guess espn doesn't realize JBot is no longer the GM.

I wouldn’t be mad.  Depends on who else is on the board.

Sanderson is right there with Drysdale.  Either is a reasonable pick from 5th on back.

Posted
7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Jake Sanderson is a heckuva prospect who will eat up a lot of minutes against the other team's best players.

Anyone upset with us drafting him is thinking only about last year's team, not the teams when this year's picks will actually matter.

I don't like Sand...erson.

I have nothing against Sanderson (or Drysdale for that matter) as the pick except I would value Rossi or Raymond more. This franchise needs scoring forwards in the pipeline in the worst way. (I believe after this season Cozens will no longer be in the pipeline and Mitts will be in Seattle and our list of prospects labeled "scorer" will amount to Ruotsalainen.)

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

I don't like Sand...erson.

I have nothing against Sanderson (or Drysdale for that matter) as the pick except I would value Rossi or Raymond more. This franchise needs scoring forwards in the pipeline in the worst way. (I believe after this season Cozens will no longer be in the pipeline and Mitts will be in Seattle and our list of prospects labeled "scorer" will amount to Ruotsalainen.)

One of the defencemen with Rossi, Perfetti or Raymond on the board would be something I would second-guess.

But with those three off the board, I'm fine with.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Jake Sanderson is a heckuva prospect who will eat up a lot of minutes against the other team's best players.

Anyone upset with us drafting him is thinking only about last year's team, not the teams when this year's picks will actually matter.

Caveat being to trade the pick, but under the circumstance where we are absolutely making the selection, you are absolutely correct. I feel like if we take a d-man I'll be unhappy that's who we are getting, but at the same time in full acknowledgement of the fact that the D-man had to be the guy, if they saw a noteworthy gap between him and the next F available. It basically amounts to us being unlucky that the "best" (in our evaluation) player available at 8 was a D man, and not someone who played F. 

The disappointment stems from the fact that, all else being equal, in my judgement a F prospect would be more beneficial to us than a D prospect, considering our current system. In a world where there was just that one extra F adjudged to be of the same level as the D, we'd be better off, even with the "talent" being seen as equal. 

So it's a small distinction, but while I agree that anyone not wanting a D(those saying that irrespective of talent - just purely on the basis of wanting a F) shouldn't be upset we TOOK Sanderson/Drysdale, I can understand some disappointment in the fact we HAD to take Sanderson/Drysdale. 

It's the type of disappointment that would fade immediately upon seeing the player achieve success, I'd imagine. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Don't see the point in running this in prime time when it's a covid remote show. They should have just started in the morning, run the whole thing and left the evening for the talking heads to analyze who won and lost.  I'm going to wait until it's all over probably. 

Free agency right after is way more interesting. 

Posted
4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Don't see the point in running this in prime time when it's a covid remote show. They should have just started in the morning, run the whole thing and left the evening for the talking heads to analyze who won and lost.  I'm going to wait until it's all over probably. 

Free agency right after is way more interesting. 

Agree. 

Posted
14 hours ago, Curt said:

I wouldn’t be mad.  Depends on who else is on the board.

Sanderson is right there with Drysdale.  Either is a reasonable pick from 5th on back.

Bingo.  

Posted
14 hours ago, dudacek said:

Jake Sanderson is a heckuva prospect who will eat up a lot of minutes against the other team's best players.

Anyone upset with us drafting him is thinking only about last year's team, not the teams when this year's picks will actually matter.

I just realized he was Geoff’s son. Carry on.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...