Derrico
-
Posts
8,884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Derrico
-
-
Who are you comparing Monahan too? That is the question.
If you don't understand let me explain further. If Nikita Zadorov were 6 months older (equivalent in age to the two I mentioned) than you have a older player who is closer to his potential and peak than a young one. Think about Zadorov and Ristolainen side by side. If last years draft happened tomorrow, which player would you rank higher or draft first? Has that changed for you since the last draft?
If Bennett is an 8.7 and Reinhart is a 9 then you have to ask yourself what if Bennett were 7 months older? Would he be an 8.7 still or a 9? would he be a 9.2? 9.5? Something more than that? Scouts are predicting where these kids will be in 5 years. I think when you look at it that way a kid like Bennett who is probably a hair (.1) below Reinhart is the better choice because if he is still growing and improving at a higher rate than the older Reinhart, that means something.
I do understand what you are saying. However, using a Zadorov Risto example is just one example of many. I could name a million older guys playing better than younger guys. Maybe it's because Zad now has a couple of years adjusting to North American style of hockey. It's not necessarily the age. Who would I take in the draft tomorrow, well it's very close but Risto is still 7 months older for whatever that means. I think age is a factor, but not as big as you might make it out to be. That's just my opinion and I respect yours. For the two Sam's maybe they are close enough to take the younger Sam. Without digging back into old posts, I've seen you use this analogy more than once and wanted to have a discussion. I still respect your opinion on it, I just don't agree.
Also, if you think Reinhart is 9 and Bennett is 8.7, you should be already taking age as one of your many factors. So in that case you go with Reinhart.
-
If you look at previous drafts it is a pretty good indicator. Like if looking at Kassian and Foligno. Foligno is 7 months younger and was not as developed as Kassian. Now they appear to be very similar players. Yet one went in the fourth round and the other the first. That 7 months of development is important.
Yep and that same year John Tavares went 1st overall and Jacob Josefson went 20th. Josefson is 6 months younger though. I'm sure you could find a million examples of younger player x ending up a better prosepect than older player y. You could also find a million the other way. If the two players are very close then yes I will take that into account but I don't think it's a huge factor or you will see year in and year out the youngest guys being taken 1st overall and turning into the best players of the class.
Look at Zadorov. Younger than Ristolainen and Jones by about 7 months. Seems to be catching up to both rather quickly.
And Monaghan was one of the older players in the draft last year and although I haven't checked lately, he's been having a great rookie season. What's your point?
I do understand what you are saying but these players are scrutinized day in and day out by scouts looking for potential. I get it if it's really close but I'm not going out of my way to talk myself into somebody due to the less than a year age gap.
-
None of those teams tanked for the purpose of getting better, they were bad because they had ownership that was either in serious financial trouble (Pittsburgh fighting bankruptcy), or an owner refusing to spend and being cheap (Chicago). Once the lockout ended, and Pittsburgh had added Crosby and Malkin, their financial troubles went away and they were able to spend. The year the 'Hawks drafted Kane the owner dies and his son takes over and starts working on deals to increase the revenue and spend more money.
In Pitt there was bankruptcy issues and they got lucky with the ball.
Chicago did have a poor owner at the time (I think I remember something about them not televising home games unless they were sold out which is so dumb as you lose a huge fan base if they can't watch their games). However, according to Wiki (I know the source is not great but this where the info came from) Chicago had a higher payroll than 10 other teams in the league in the season leading up to the Kane pick. They were just slightly under the avg. payroll in the league. I'm not sure money was a factor there.
-
I wouldn't care if my favorite team traded their next 10 first rounders for a rental if they won the cup. If we were in a position to win and made a really lopsided trade in the other team's favor at the deadline for a player that contributed to a cup, and then that player walked in free agency, I would be completely okay with that.
Same.
-
Yes for me draisaitl is not an option. As for Reinhardt v Bennett. .. I keep looking at that age difference and wondering. Also hearing Bennett can take over a game... drool
You use the age difference in alot of your analysis. I agree that it is a factor but I'm not sure it should be a determining factor.
-
Fine with me then!
We would be currently drafting 1st anf fifth if the islanders gave up their pick. Which I think they will because they are most likely going to be worse next year than this year.
It may happen but I'd be shocked if they end up fifth from the bottom. They've gone 10-4 in their last 14 and most games they lose is because of their horrendous D, but visnovsky (aka their best D option) is finally almost ready to come back from a long term injury. If I could sign up for them ending up in 5th last today I would sign on the dotted line in a heartbeat.
-
Ristolainen - AHL
Zadorov - OHL
McCabe - NCAA
psysk - rookie
That's why. No one is saying their d is strong now, but we are going through a rebuild. Young D is the only thing we have a surplus of. Scoring talent is a need. We traded a young defenseman for scoring potential. Pysyk, Myers, ristolainen, zadorov, McCabe, and Erhoff are worth more than sekera
I really do love the D potential that we have coming through the system. Also I would make that trade again because from what I've read Compher should be a good player. But let's just not completely write these guys names in pen as top end Dmen yet.
It sounds silly now but I remember when we were 'loaded' on D a few years ago with the likes of Sekera, Butler, Brennan, Schiestel, Persson and Gragnani. How many other than Sekera and to a lesser extent Butler panned out? Now IMO Risto and Zadorov have shown real promise and were picked in the top 15 within a deep draft so they should have obvious more potential then the aformentioned player. Just saying that nfreeman's point may be that let's not start trading away top 4 Dmen on this team until we know what we have.
-
The Islanders.
I know they lost last night but they've been really hot lately. Personally, I'm still holding out hope they lose a bunch down the stretch and then defer.
-
McKeen’s Hockey Mid Term Rankings – January 2014:
1 Sam Reinhart C Kootenay (WHL) 6-1/185 06-Nov-95
2 Aaron Ekblad D Barrie (OHL) 6-3/215 07-Feb-96
3 Sam Bennett C Kingston (OHL) 6-0/180 20-Jun-96
4 Michael Dal Colle LW Oshawa (OHL) 6-2/180 20-Jun-96
5 Leon Draisaitl C Prince Albert (WHL) 6-2/210 27-Oct-95
This is starting to look like the consensus top 5 players (albeit in many different orders). We should be getting 1 of these guys.
-
My impression, having not listened or watched any of those things :P, was that Miller's point has been enough words, i want to see action. So rather than saying they will build up a young core and trade picks and prospects for young promising guys, go and do it. The fact is that the only trade in the last 11 months was getting rid of Vanek and bringing in Omark. We haven't done anything to make me think we won't be in last place next year. So I don't think Miller is more inclined to resign now than he was 11 months ago
And for those wanting to tank next year. At best we have a 75% chance of not getting McDavid. There is no point hoping we suck as there is a very good chance we suck and don't get the next Crosby. I don't want a Taylor Hall, I want a Toews or Kane or Crosby.
I do understand your point here. But honestly, just take a quick google search of next years draft and it's not just McDavid. The top 5 are suppose to be awesome. I know there is the old addage that next years draft is always better than this year. I get that but the things I'm reading from legit hockey writers is that next years draft should be atleast as good as last years draft (or even better at the very top ie. picks 1 AND 2).
Morning all, I see Ryan is still a Sabre as of roughly 9am this morning. That's it, I'm done with this Murray character, why isn't Ty Rattie or Dimitrij Jaskin in the Sabres prospect pool yet.......... :P
Hhahahahhaa, nice.
-
ICYMI: Bob McKenzie's Mid-Season NHL Draft Ranking Show <23:04>
Who will top the list at the halfway mark? Ekblad? Reinhart? Bennett? TSN Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie reveals his mid-season draft rankings.
I completely forgot to set up the dvr tonight for this, thanks man.
Sabres and isles regulation losses tonight, tank on....
-
84 is a cool number.
I was just thinking the opposite lol.
-
Actually, I don't even think you can say that about the Penguins either. They did win the lottery by getting Crosby, who appears to be in the same category as Gretzky. But they also spent many years drafting near the top to get Malkin, Staal and Fleury, but without Crosby, I still think they are not favorites for a cup if they didn't land him. Chicago spent alot of time at the bottom also and ended up getting Toews and Kane eventually, and with some additional moves were able to win a couple cups. What both of the teams appear to have had in common that put them in a position to draft highly for many years was bad ownership that kept them from spending and bringing in good players. Pittsburgh was fighting to keep their team in pittsburgh and Bankruptcy until they hit the Crosby Jackpot, and the 'Hawks needed their old owner to die and get passed on to someone willing to spend.
Theres alot more Oilers and Islanders (teams drafting for many years at the top of the draft and fighting to just be a playoff team) then there are teams that drafted a superstar in the top spot of the draft and turned things around.
That's why you can't tank for one season. The Penguins and Blackhawks tanked for a few. With all the assets we've picked up and some very promising prospects, I think if we can pick top 2 this year and next we are on the proper Pitt/Chicago/LA trajectory. I firmly believe in our young D core with the likes of Pysyk, Risto, Zad and McCabe (especially with Myers coming back to form). Give me a very good player in this draft and then next seasons elite prospect (with 2 or 3 looking like can't miss) and we are set. The Sabres are nowhere near the analogy you put forth earlier imo.
-
if I was Miller, I wouldn't give them a definitive answer yet either.
Show me that your trying to improve the team now, and not hoping for the future and I would consider re-signing. Take the slow 3-5 year rebuild approach and I would be gone. Use some of these accumulated assets (picks and prospects) to turn them into guys that can help speed things up now and I would consider re-signing.
Taking the 'Tank' approach to rebuilding is like trying to rebuild your finances with lottery tickets. You might hit it big and win a jackpot (Pittsburgh) or more then likely your gonna continue chasing the next jackpot with more tickets (Oilers, Islanders)
Completely disagree. I know you're being facetious but there are far more examples of teams landing stars at the top of the draft (and it helping result in a cup) than just the Penguins. Odds of a real lottery are like what, 1 in 80 million. It's not comparable.
-
Totally my spin:
Miller has not given them a definitive answer, which they are interpreting as he's unlikely to re-sign before the deadline.
They are going to find a trade they are comfortable with, with a team that is a contender (do right by Ryan).
They will offer him a good deal to sign. If he doesn't accept, they will make the trade.
They will also look hard at re-signing him in July.
Pat wants Tim to remove the interim tag. Tim likes Ted, but not ready to remove the tag — he's letting that play out while he works on other priorities.
Thanks man!
-
Could you (or someone)provide a quick little summary for those of us at work?
-
Hahahahha, I was actually talking about the Latvian, my bad for the mix up. My point is I don't think you can have too much depth at C. Why not keep 'the Latvian', Hodgson and 2014 1st all at C and roll 3 very good lines out there night after night.
For the record I'm getting close to writing off the Russian Grigs and don't think it's worth giving him a nickname until we know he will actually play in the NHL. I'm not ready to cut him loose yet or anything but at this point I'm not expecting much and it will be a great bonus if he figures things out.
-
You know I was almost there. But then it hit me that the Sabres are almost competitive with a line-up of Matt D'Agostinis.
And if Miller stays, we make a few judicious acquisitions and a few of our kids come on, we could challenge for a playoff spot with our most talented forward being Cody Hodgson.
And we will fool ourselves into climbing back on to the almost good enough Darcy Regier cycle.
I want a cup. We need more elite talent. And we aren't going to get it picking 11.
Let's make this suffering worth something.
+1
-
I don't really see Hodgson or Grigs as a 3rd line center, they (so far) don't have the right kind of game. Someone's gonna have to move to wing (I'm thinking Grigs).
If we end up with a very good team I would think Grigs would be the perfect 3rd line centre. He is a hard working guy who plays very sound defensively. What makes you think otherwise, just that he will be too good for the 3rd line? Boston had Krejci, Bergeron and Seguin down the middle last season and went to the cup. You almost need 3 good centres to win. If we ever got McDavid and had a high '14 draft centre, Hodgson, McDavid and Girgs down the middle then I'd look at moving one to wing.
-
Enroth to the Islanders for Clutterbuck and a 3rd. You heard it here first.
That better not happen. I really can't see us re-signing Miller and we do require someone to play goal unless you either want to really tank for the pick next year (which I'd be ok with) or try and sign someone like Hiller in the offseason. Plus, I remember Clutterbuck from his Oshawa General days and I don't really want any part of that.
-
Suggestion #1: Miller to Philly with retained salary for Laughton or Cousins, Meszaros, and their first. That team gets really scary with a good goalie. Probably isn't on the 10-team list. Meszaros is a cap play for the flyers.
Suggestion #2: Sign him to a big deal if he'll take it, we won't have cap issues for the next 2-3 years, and by 2019, the cap will probably be well over $100M.
I'd sign up for Suggestion #1 in a heartbeat but I don't think the market is strong enough for that.
Miller is getting later in his career and has clearly stated he wants to play for a contender. He has not signed an extension with us yet and sold his Buffalo residence last year. He has shown no indication (no media reports or quotes that I'm aware of) saying he is commited to staying. So therefore you have to trade him IMO. I would rather a good prospect but may have to take a 1st only. Going back to Suggestion #1, I'd take Scott Laughton period if that's all that was available. Other than the Flyers, Capitals and possibly Blues who else would be interested in Miller?
-
IMPO, yes. We have no reason to become Edmonton Oilers East. If you got 2 of the top five (highly unlikely) there really isn't a good reason not to let them play another year in junior. The only thing is if they come into camp and preseason and are rock solid, then you have a real decision. It is hard to say before we see who we draft and how they look at the NHL level but as of right now, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea.
I should add that I think the Sabres will actually draft 3rd and 10th. With those picks they will draft Reinhart and either Adrian Kempe or Anton Karlsson. They will also have a draft pick somewhere in the early 20's as well. With that they will draft Alex Tuch.
I would sign up for that but I still think Reinhart is the first forward taken in the draft.
-
Then it should be named differently.
I guess the name can change but I definetly enjoy all the speculation and rumours tweeted and discussed by the talking heads.
-
5... You have Reinhart, Bennett, Draisaitl, Ekblad... than Dal Colle is right on the edge. After that it is a drop off.
Yep. As for my preference, I still prefer Reinhart. I didn't see all of the game last night but he looked good in the parts I caught.
Official 2014 NHL Draft thread
in The Aud Club
Posted · Edited by Derrico
Hahahha, after watching Bob McKenzie's breakdown I may also agree with you but not based on his age.
Yep, if you read Freakonomics it talks about kids older amongst their peers actually turn out to be better athletes than younger kids in the same age group.