ROLE PLAYING

Over at Oilers Nation today, Jonathan Willis read the roll call for the poor performances by the Edmonton prospects this fall. As someone who had to plough through it for the top 20 prospects series, I’m glad someone else feels my pain. Jonathan mentioned something during the comments section that tweaked my memory and I thought we could roll it around in our minds awhile.

The article is here. The pertinent comment is here:

  • Jonathan Willis: At this point, though, I can’t think of a single guy in the system who I like as a potential third-liner. I’ve got higher hopes for Khaira; other depth guys don’t look like they have the ceiling. Maybe Rieder though size has always been an issue; for Moroz, Pitlick, Hamilton, and Lander I just don’t see the offence.

I’m a big fan of Jonathan, and am certain he doesn’t need me to remind him of small sample sizes–which I do believe can be used in the Rieder conversation–but his point in regard to the others is well taken. We’re about 750 at-bats (or should be) into the AHL careers of Lander, Hamilton and Pitlick, with little indication of an NHL player emerging from those three 2nd round selections. I would argue TOI and their slot in the lineup, but even with that the poor totals of these players is cause for concern.

The quote took me all the way back–and don’t ask me why–to the Kevin McClelland trade. I guess maybe because it was the first time in my Oiler fan experience (at least at the NHL level) where a guy I liked was shipped out of town for a mucker. For those who don’t recall, the story is well covered here.

I liked Tom Roulston, cheered for him as I did for Gregg Sheppard before him and Marc Pouliot after, with a fan’s endless faith.

Now.

The part of the quote that got me thinking about McClelland was “at this point though, I can’t think of a single guy in the system who I like as a potential third liner.”

And it hit me.

I believe a case can be made that many third liners–checkers–begin life on one team as possible solutions higher up the batting order. And in many, many cases in this fan’s experience the best third liners come from outside the organization and emerge with their new team in a new role. Recent Oiler examples might include but would not be limited to Marty Reasoner, Ethan Moreau and Todd Marchant, and ancient Oiler examples would be Dave Hunter, Dave Lumley, Craig MacTavish and Kevin McClelland.

As with many things that rattle around in my brain, I believe its genius. Often, it is not. I’ll leave it to you to decide. However, when we’re projected these players forward, I do believe it is important to remember that “re-set” in hockey terms often means a player is found unsuitable for his current role and then sent away, where he either adjusts his skills (Reasoner) or finds a willing coach (Kyle Brodziak) born in the same century who understands what that player is capable of and overlooks the problems.

I don’t know that any of Lander, Pitlick or Hamilton will fail, I’m still pretty strong on both Pitlick and Lander. However, I do think the clock is ticking on both, and next season will be the final year of their entry level deals.  Hockey has a funny way of working things out, one man’s trash becomes another man’s treasure. I think we’ll see something happen with Linus Omark’s rights sometime soon, and still have a light on for Marc Pouliot.

Call me crazy, but a lot of castaways were in every Oiler Stanley Cup photo and that’s for sure. You could look it up.

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.

36 Responses to "ROLE PLAYING"

  1. mps91 says:

    Worry is justified but the sense of panic amongst many Oiler fans is premature.

    -MPS and Lander have been coming on a bit lately. Not everything progresses in a perfectly linear way. Give them some time.

    -Is there any doubt that Pitlick’s production will get a boost when he sees some PP time when (not if) the NHL season starts up again? He has thrown bigger hits in OKC this year than i’ve seen an Oiler throw since Moreau’ prime. Still plenty to like there.

    -I don’t see any reason why Reider should be worrying people. He played with scorers last year and put up some sick numbers. This year, he’s playing with less elite talent, but still plays in all situations from what we read. To me, that kind of versatility and skill makes for the perfect 3rd liner.. you know, the kind the Wings and Flyers always seem to have.

    -Moroz is a worry though and has been since draft day.

  2. Bar_Qu says:

    Ryan Jones would also qualify as an second-team-emergent talent.

    I thought Staples’ Minny-Edm prospect talent comparison also highlighted the depth struggle the Oil face. And how the “swing for the fences” mentality of the second round draft the last couple of years is not really paying off (though I too still hope for Pitlick).

    Edm has some serious blinders on when it comes to looking for talent and it isn’t valuing skill over other traits. More’s the pity.

  3. sliderule says:

    People like DSF have been trying to expose the fact that there is a problem in our amateur scouting starting at the top.
    if you ignore our first picks and other than the two Czechs that frank Musil recommended what do we have?nada
    The oil have to upgrade their scouting staff and cover the USHL which the have been ignoring.

  4. Jonathan Willis says:

    I agree that many a third-liner is a top-six guy who never brought the offense and had to find other work. I also tend to think that, with some exceptions, the primary difference between a second line guy and a third line guy is that the former is a little better than the latter rather than style. Hartikainen’s a great example of a guy who might be the former and might be the latter but could fit well on either line.

    The problem with the Oilers is – at least with the bulk of their auxiliary forward prospects – these are guys who might be third-liners but look more like they’re falling into fourth-line/tweener status. It’s not a new thing; Pitlick’s on his third season with middling or worse numbers, and for that matter his draft year numbers weren’t all that shiny anyway. Even a guy like Rieder has 1-1/2 sub-par offensive seasons (including the current one) and just one good year. Which is he? I don’t know. I like him as a prospect but the bulk of the data doesn’t support him and he’s arguably the best of the lot.

    Of course, I think LT agrees with much of this – there’s a reason Khaira shot up the rankings, beyond the fact that he’s one of the bright spots this year.

  5. Lowetide says:

    Jon: I noticed in your article that Pitlick had some time with the skill lines. I’ve watched quite a bit but will admit to having gaps in this season. How often did Pitlick play with the skilled men? I honestly don’t recall beyond a couple of games.

  6. Ducey says:

    I have trouble getting too excited about the AHL guys and their supposed struggles. We don’t have TOI and I would bet their PP minutes are being eaten by the wunderkids.

    Is it a surprise that McCaron (6th rounder in a weak draft), Cornet (5th rounder), and Jones (7th rounder) look like they won’t make it? It would be a huge surprise if they DID make it. Always has been.

    A lot of “castaways” wind up with new organizations as they don’t become usefull until they hit their prime at age 25 – 28. It takes time to learn how to play an intimidation/ checking/ PK role. Not all players are going to light it up during their ELC’s.

  7. Lowetide says:

    Ducey: I think we should expect more from Pitlick and Hamilton, even in what must be limited minutes. Hamilton has 4 points, Pitlick 2. We’re 20 games in now.

  8. jake70 says:

    You can’t keep these guys in your system forever on waiver exempt 2-way contracts to see how they may progress (which they may not anyway). Not panicking but the Barons are now in year 3, and any fault attributed to the growing pains of a new farm team should not be a factor at this point so what is the issue with MPS, Pitlick, Hamilton? Is it too much to expect at least one of them to step the heck up and make a statemen?

    Little McClelland memory. Back in 94, out on the town in Moncton, when we had the Hawks of the AHL (jets farm team at the time). Having a brew at Ziggys bar and looking around , and there is McLelland, by himself by one of those tall bar tables, puffing on a cigarette….total look of disinterest on his face. I remember thinking to myself how I yelled out when he scored that winning goal against the Islanders years earlier in the cup final, and now here he is, 10 feet away having a cigarette It hit me because his career was finishing and it was symbolic of the Oilers entering into those dark years in the 90s….depressing I must say…just one of those moments that sticks with you.

  9. Lowetide says:

    Jake 70: In fairness, the top wingers for OKC are Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi and Teemu Hartikainen. That’s a pretty nice group.

  10. Melman says:

    The part that stuck out for me in the Kevin McClelland trade article was his size. 6′ 180 lbs of hard grinding mucker…my how times have changed. He’d be ripped as another small forward on the current roster!

  11. sliderule says:

    The first round picks Stu has made you can’t argue against.

    The high second rd picks like Pitlick Moroz and Musil I question.

    Pilick I give them a pass on as he was rated highly.On the other hand your scouting should hopefully be more than central scouting lists.

    Musil was a favor to his father Frank who as a scout I think is ok .The kid is tough but his feet are in cement

    Moroz is a better skating cam Abney.You can trade for proven guys like him for a third round choice

    Teams like Minny and Dallas are doing much better with their non first round picks.

    Why?

  12. Lowetide says:

    Melman:
    The part that stuck out for me in the Kevin McClelland trade article was his size.6′ 180 lbs of hard grinding mucker…my how times have changed.He’d be ripped as another small forward on the current roster!

    He was 6.02, 205 according to hockey-reference, which agrees with my memory. He wasn’t small for the era, that I do recall.

  13. jb says:

    Is the lockout attempting to strip Stu of his Magnificent M? poor bastard.

    How hard will it be to plug a couple 3rd/4th line holes if needed? Not very.. there’s plenty of slightly overpaid guys you could target that would make great 3rd liners on this team. Give up a little value and you could reel in almost anyone you want.

    Even assuming all our potential 3rd/4th line prospects bust.. still not worried.

  14. hunter1909 says:

    NHL fanatic fans denied their NHL hockey, turn to micromanage the clearly inferior AHL product.

    If anything, seeing an occasional few minutes of the OK City whatever they’re called shows what a clear drop it is between Foster Hewitt calling the Stanley Cup Champion Maple Leafs against their arch rival (and with 40% of the league’s talent) Montreal Canadiens, and those few Baron’s AHL games seen online also sometimes with a double audio feed.

    Maybe it’s a corollary from the lockout.

    It’s December 17, and they’re not playing hockey so…when exactly is the season lost?

    In case of a lost season, they’re going to play fair and let the teams 2013 pick remain exactly the same like 2012, right?

  15. Woodguy says:

    Jonathan Willis,

    The problem with the Oilers is – at least with the bulk of their auxiliary forward prospects – these are guys who might be third-liners but look more like they’re falling into fourth-line/tweener status. It’s not a new thing; Pitlick’s on his third season with middling or worse numbers, and for that matter his draft year numbers weren’t all that shiny anyway. Even a guy like Rieder has 1-1/2 sub-par offensive seasons (including the current one) and just one good year. Which is he? I don’t know. I like him as a prospect but the bulk of the data doesn’t support him and he’s arguably the best of the lot.

    Someone once wrote this:

    Second and third round picks are a cut above the rest of the draft, although the chances of landing a “decent” or better player are quite low: a little better than 1 in 5 for the second round, and slightly better than 1 in 7 for the third round.
    There’s little difference between picks made from the fourth to ninth rounds of the draft; over those rounds players are roughly half as likely to develop into a “decent” or better player as a third round pick.

    If that’s the case, then how are you sure that what you see isn’t due to some level of competence, but simply to variance?

    A sample size this small could be subject to crazy variance.

    Pretty early to call bust on some of these guys.

    No question that some are not trending well and the odds of them being the 1 in 5 or 1 in 7 is getting bleaker.

    Maybe its too much to wish all your 2nd and 3rd rounders turn out better than the “failed 1st rounders” who had to change to keep a job in the NHL.

    Mind you, the skating ability and brain to change gears and keep a job in the best league in the world (when it was a league… those were the days) is probably what got them drafted in the 1st round to begin with.

  16. DeadmanWaking says:

    If either Taylor or Tyler hit a path-deflecting pothole out of the gate, we wouldn’t even be having this debate under the leaning tower of M–it would be resolved into halo or horns already. In statistics, it’s an open invitation for trouble to draw a circle around any success or failure at either end of the Bell curve, before asking “what of the rest?”

    I think that’s a bit like not giving a bomb disposal crew credit for defusing bombs that were later discovered to be all Hollywood hairnet and no cow-pult. If it turns out the device lacked for explosive guts under the coloured wires, what credit in that? Defuse a blower not a shower, and then we’ll talk brass testicles. A mite unfair is it not to the guy with his legs straddling glory making his first tentative snip? Aw ya pussy, no way a bomb that size is ever filled with C4LM, short of losing a fin to reckless abandon.

  17. OilLeak says:

    The problem with some of the most recent draft selections is the drafting of players that will top out 3rd liners. A 3rd liner in junior can’t be expected to be a 3rd liner in the NHL, the scouts should stick to drafting scorers with the hopes they can round out other aspects of their game if a scoring role is not in their future as opposed to drafting grinders and hope they can somehow add offense.

  18. Lowetide says:

    Hamilton and Pitlick weren’t third liners in junior. Lander was heralded for his defensive ability but had a strong season in the SEL, age 19.

  19. DeadmanWaking says:

    If this forum had preview and a subject line, that post might have been briefly entitled “cowl4mity” before a second take identified it as the probable subtitle of The Da Vinci Code: Part IV. I was just trying to playfully merge C4 with CLM without the alpha particle of l33tn3ss irradiating it into an Austin Powers unexplosive (CALM rendered C4LM). Weird supertext. Too cerebral for Get Smart, yet too cryptic/cynical for Jerry McGuire.

    If I someday write “the l33tn3ss monster” will anyone get the joke? Probably. “0g0p0g0 strikes again”? I’m not so sure.

  20. DeadmanWaking says:

    calamity + cow + 4 => cowl4mity => cowl amity: febrile friendship of the furtive frock

    Is it my meds or the moon? There ought to be another riff here on mooncalf. I very nearly described myself as a mooncalf about a week ago.

  21. Rebilled says:

    Jordan Eberle ‏@ebs_14
    @hallsy04 @ashleyahancock wow guy is reverting to twitter to talk to girls.
    View conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More
    2m Justin Schultz ‏@6Schultz6
    @hallsy04 @ashleyahancock hey can I get a RT! I’m your biggest fan!!!
    View conversation
    8m Taylor Hall ‏@hallsy04
    My girl @ashleyahancock and me. Follow her pic.twitter.com/ayJgBuSX
    View photo

    I’m new to twitter. pretty funny.

  22. Oilertown says:

    Not sure why the Oil are not going for BPA straight through the draft instead of just the first round or first two picks like they did the Hall draft. Kinda jealous though after watching Zucker who was the Hall draft. The Oilers could have had him.

  23. Oilertown says:

    Hindsight is 20/20 though and no one knew Pitlick would become the dud he is not even DSF.

  24. El Duderino says:

    Ah, Hemingway, now there was a straight forward writer. Easy to read, easy to understand. Someone I think is showing off, but not communicating.

  25. OilLeak says:

    Lowetide:
    Hamilton and Pitlick weren’t third liners in junior. Lander was heralded for his defensive ability but had a strong season in the SEL, age 19.

    Pitlick is a bit of an enigma, just really odd that he can’t put the pieces together. I still believe Lander will turn it around, but players like Ewanyk, Abney, and Moroz were depth players in Junior to begin with and were taken when there were better offensive players available. Those are draft selections you may as well just throw away because they may not even be serviceable AHL players.

  26. DeadmanWaking says:

    Scrambled letters might work on XKCD.

    Stick boy with evil stick goatee: Hey look!

    Stick girl with a big stick stack: What?

    Boy V: Steg-encoded MIME header on my Dead-AIM account.

    Girl W: You’ve got mail? On AIM!?! Paging H. G. Wells!

    [Boy V applies the final rot-13 transform.]

    Girl W: What’s it say?

    Boy V: Dear Anonymous: You’ve been invited to participate in a Lateshow round-tablet discussion of stealth drone technology. If you wish to participate, please call 1 800 KAA-BOOM on your GPS-enabled smartphone on 2012-12-21T22:00Z. Sincerely, D4v3 L33t3rm4n.

    Girl W: Are you sure you finished decoding that?

    Boy V: Piece of cake. Round-tablet? Cool! I’m in.

    Girl W: Looks fishy. What if AIM was … you know … subverted?

    Boy V: Not AIM. Dead-AIM. That’s our primo darknet.

    Girl W: Hey, what happened to District Nein?

    Boy V: Too conspicuous. Dead-AIM is totally under the radar. Infiltrated? Never! [Stabs air] We’re Anonymous. [Dances stick jig] Round-tablet, oh boy.

    Girl W [rolls diamond-shaped eyes]: Anything from a round can. [Wonders if she should have her Madonas fluffed. Nah, too conspicuous.]

    Yellow text: [Cynical remark about the fatal allure of the hockey-puck mouse in the stick-figure universe.]

  27. VOR says:

    Not to mess with Deadman’s beautiful poetry but could somebody please define for me BPA?

    Let’s pretend you are a GM in 1994. It is the end of the 2nd round of the draft. Start of the 3rd round, Oilers are on the clock. Who is the best player available?

    Even time hasn’t answered that question. We could argue all night long knowing full well how their careers have turned out and we still wouldn’t all agree on one candidate.

    My personal money is on the guy who gets no respect, Thomas Vokoun. He should be an automatic HOF but probably won’t ever get in. Maybe you like somebody else, point is there are at least 6 guys still available as the thrid round opens who are true impact players. Game changers.There are another 4 really good NHL players. They are swimming in a pool of 200 plus prospects. Not so simple this drafting BPA.

    Then there is the entire idea that players either announce themselves by 20 or they are toast. Take a look at the guy drafted 257 in 1994. Didn’t make the NHL until he was 23, and then got the crap kicked out of him. Not good in Europe, not good in the NHL. At 24 he’s a player, a key piece, one of the most feared respected and efficient players in the game. The definition of tough.

    So much as we would like to we can’t simply draft scorers and say they are BPA, or be sure we can safely give up on the failed draft picks like Satan and Maltby. History makes fools out of us all. There is no way to know if BPA is the best strategy in hockey because there is no certain definition of, or ranking of, future NHL impact. There isn’t even a consistent agreement about which talents really matter most in a hockey player.

    I suppose you could all claim to have known that a gutless Swede who couldn’t skate, who couldn’t shoot, who couldn’t pass, who wouldn’t fight, and didn’t play defense would play over 1000 games and win several Stanley Cups because he had this odd skill. “Listen coach, I’ll go stand in front of the goaltender and drive him flipping insane so that he will lose track of where Nick is and then that point shot will go in more often than not.” Hardly seems like something Scouts and GMs go around asking themselves. “Does this kid stand in front of the net better than that kid?” Yet in that year (1994) two of the very best goal mouth monsters in the history of the game were drafted. Everybody had heard of Ryan Smyth and knew he was BPA. Nobody had heard of Tomas Holmstrom. It seems to me often BPA just means we have heard of him, not he is better than that no name Swede who doesn’t even get it done in Swedish Junior.

    The thing is, press clippings and rankings don’t win hockey games. Players do. So I ask again, how exactly is it that we are defining BPA?

  28. kosiork says:

    In fairness to the Oilers scouts, they seem to be out everywhere in the USHL/MN high school region these days. Would see 3 – 4 at at time this fall…

  29. Wolfpack says:

    I can think of a lot of guys over the years that the Oilers have traded away that fit into this category – guys like McAmmond or Maltby. Maltby was a third rounder so there was a bit of a difference there. The problem I see is that it has been a long time since I’ve seen the Oilers aquire one of those type of players – higher draft pick by another team that falls short of expectations but becomes a great third liner. Eager has been a miss so far. Belanger had a solid body of work but last year was a big disappointment. This is one area where the Oilers need to get better.

    Agree with OilLeak that drafting scorers that can become checkers might be a better bet than drafting pluggers and hoping they develop some offence.

    I’d really like to see the draft age raised by a year… would be nice to be a bit more certain about what you are getting. Brodziak is a good example of a player who would have probably gone 5 rounds higher one year later.

  30. VOR says:

    I thought up a simple little quiz.

    All the info you have is that the following stats belong to players who were all taken in the same draft year, and all had longer than average NHL careers. There isn’t a bad player among them. I have removed the dmen and the goaltenders. The numbers are for their draft year. All players were playing in tough leagues (major junior, or european pro). The first number is goals per game, the second number is points per game.

    All any of you who believe in BPA has to do is pick three. Tell me which three are the best players available. This is the sort of info you have about juniors as a fan even today. So it should be simple. None of these players had character issues. None had health issues. If you believe you always take the scorer I have arranged them in that order for you. Take the top three. I promise you there is a Hall of Famer in there. Of course there might be Hall of Famers elsewhere in the list.

    1.25, 2.39
    1.0, 2.27
    .88, 2.51
    .79, 1.59
    .72, 1.94
    .70, 1.94
    .70, 1.18
    .67, 1.70
    .53, 1.16

    I am not cheating, I didn’t cherry pick. All but one of these players was ranked highly by scouts. All but one was a far above average NHL player. A number of these players had serious buzz coming into the draft (I think those draft year numbers tell you why). They all proved they could outplay in the NHL and play defense to boot. Not a bad player in the lot. However, there is a very real difference in the impact they had in the NHL. So it should be simple to spot the 3 best players available.

    Is it?

  31. VOR says:

    By the way, I’m concerned that in questioning drafting BPA as a strategy I might be seen as supporting drafting for need. Drafting for need is a real lemon, the worst of all worlds. But if we are going to criticize drafting for need then it is incumbent upon us to offer more than to say take the BPA since despite what many writers seem to think there is no current way in the NHL to determine BPA.

    There is also a tremendous disconnect on many fronts about what the raw data surrounding hockey draft outcomes means for a successful draft strategy. My main point would simply be that it is essential to keep in mind that drafting in any pro league is a game and game theory will apply. Simply put, strategic advantage rapidly disappears.

    This is why research focussed on the NFL has been moving towards concepts like BVA (Best Value Available) and combining that with strategies like double dip, and draft hoarding to see if a truly optimal strategy can be achieved that is robust over time regardless of draft strategies of other teams.

  32. spoiler says:

    I’m surprised that JW doesn’t consider Paajarvi to be a legitimate 3rd line option. I haven’t read the ON thread yet. Does he cover the omission there?

  33. spoiler says:

    VOR:
    I thought up a simple little quiz.

    All the info you have is that the following stats belong to players who were all taken in the same draft year, and all had longer than average NHL careers. There isn’t a bad player among them. I have removed the dmen and the goaltenders. The numbers are for their draft year. All players were playing in tough leagues (major junior, or european pro). The first number is goals per game, the second number is points per game.

    All any of you who believe in BPA has to do is pick three. Tell me which three are the best players available. This is the sort of info you have about juniors as a fan even today. So it should be simple. None of these players had character issues. None had health issues. If you believe you always take the scorer I have arranged them in that order for you. Take the top three. I promise you there is a Hall of Famer in there. Of course there might be Hall of Famers elsewhere in the list.

    1.25, 2.39
    1.0, 2.27
    .88, 2.51
    .79, 1.59
    .72, 1.94
    .70, 1.94
    .70, 1.18
    .67, 1.70
    .53, 1.16

    I am not cheating, I didn’t cherry pick. All but one of these players was ranked highly by scouts. All but one was a far above average NHL player. A number of these players had serious buzz coming into the draft (I think those draft year numbers tell you why). They all proved they could outplay in the NHL and play defense to boot. Not a bad player in the lot. However, there is a very real difference in the impact they had in the NHL. So it should be simple to spot the 3 best players available.

    Is it?

    Knowing which players are in the European pro leagues makes a difference, due to the 2nd assist factor (and because if its Sweden or Russia TOI is probably significantly less than CHL).

    That said, I would take the 4 players with the best goals to points ratios: #s 1, 4, and 7 on your list, I believe. That’s my bias, towards goal-scoring, but of course, still a guess considering the limited info.

    As for drafting for “need”, I think it is absolutely essential. No team ever takes all left wingers even if they’re the BPA, unless they’re drafting for Parliament. Since BPA is really about a group of players and not one prospect, teams understandably take the one that balances their organizational roster. BPA should really be re-named The Better Players Available. (Of course, this is a bit different when drafting in a lottery slot.)

  34. VOR says:

    Spoiler,

    Your approach gets 2918 games, 1075 goals, 1428 assists and 2503 points.

    A perfect score would be 3574 games, 1549 goals, 2396 assists and 3945 points. I did say these guys could seriously play hockey.

    The beauty of BVA is that you take into account organizational need. In simple terms BVA says pick the best player available that fits your ogranizational need as long as the difference in previously demonstrated talent isn’t too great.

    To me that sounds quite rational, combining both things (need and talent). There are of course serious questions you’d need to be able to answer.

    Anybody else want to take a guess on three players from the nine? Spoiler, would you like to take another shot?

  35. AussieRules says:

    I reckon Vor and Woodguy are onto it in the sense that drafting is down to statistics and chance. You can try whatever strategy you like in drafting NHL players and sometimes through no fault of your own you can fail miserably. You can only ask that the scouts do their homework, and the guy(s) calling the shots see a bigger picture in what is necessary to develop a balanced, quality team. While 3rd liners are “easily” traded for, Gaustads and Pahlsons still often require 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks to get. If you’re not a contending team that is going to trade away these picks for such players, why not use the picks to attempt to develop such players, especially when you already have an embarrassing wealth of top line talent.
    Ryan Kesler was drafted in the ridiculous draft of 2003. I remember thinking at the time “what the f is vancouver doing?”. The talking heads were describing him as a character guy, a defensive specialist, a definite 3rd liner with potential offensive upside. A lot of the players who vancouver passed over have gone on to justify my incredulous response to the Kesler pick, however Kesler himself has arguably held his own and more than justified the faith the Canucks scouts had in him.
    I believe the Lander and Pitlick picks are justifiable Kesler-type picks which may turn out and may not. I am not saying they will become Kesler, but they still may become what Kesler was intended to be. Moroz is questionable, however if people stop lambasting him and those who picked him for Moroz not being the next Lucic, consider the effect the Sutter hiring had on the LA Kings, and the far more subtle additions of Dwight King and Ted Nolan’s son had to that line-up.
    If people had more realistic expectations, as I would assume people in management actually use, you can see the value in drafting lander, pitlick, or moroz: while hoping to draft a kesler or lucic, you realistically see the value in potentially developing a gaustad or malhotra, but honestly realise most draft picks dont make it at all.

  36. Jonathan Willis says:

    spoiler,

    Magnus Paajarvi isn’t a prospect.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca