
I'm bored.
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Gaucho wrote:I guess we'd draft a prospect, maybe a defenseman.
Gaucho wrote:I guess we'd draft a prospect, maybe a defenseman.
pittsports87 wrote:Gaucho wrote:I guess we'd draft a prospect, maybe a defenseman.
Maybe?
pittsports87 wrote:Gaucho wrote:I guess we'd draft a prospect, maybe a defenseman.
Maybe?
Godric wrote:pittsports87 wrote:Gaucho wrote:I guess we'd draft a prospect, maybe a defenseman.
Maybe?
We could trade the pick
mikey287 wrote:It's been hashed out a lot already...no need to go through it again. Drafting for need is generally foolish. He was only the fourth rated prospect by one source (though 4 sounds high...but that's not the point...it could have been 1, it doesn't matter)...many NHL teams did not have him that high. Many teams had Pouliot higher than 22 or where ever, more than just Pittsburgh had him top-10. No one has a clue who Forsberg is (period) if not for that arbitrary number to the left of his name, same for Teravainen. If Pouliot had a 6 next to his name on one list and Forsberg has a 27, no one says anything...the arguments aren't based on talent analysis, they're based on an arbitrary number. Garbage in, garbage out.
TheBigLebowski wrote:Drafting for need is foolish.
TheBigLebowski wrote:Drafting for need is foolish. But when the prospects are close in ranking, take the player of need. Plus, Matta was a nice consolation prize at #22.
MRandall25 wrote:TheBigLebowski wrote:Drafting for need is foolish.
Um, what? That what the entire draft is for.
Godric wrote:MRandall25 wrote:TheBigLebowski wrote:Drafting for need is foolish.
Um, what? That what the entire draft is for.
Most generally, drafting the best player avaliable regardless of position and roster needs is the best business