Good or Best 9 ronder

Status
Not open for further replies.

leafaholix*

Guest
Martin Vagner would not be the best 9th rounder picked. In 2 years he's gone backwards. He went from a top 2 defenseman for Hull (Gatineau) in his rookie season to dropping back to a #5/6 role this past season.

I've seen him around 10 times this past season as well and cannot say anything positive about him. He was absolutely brutal.

Take into consideration that most of the 9th rounders in 2004 are just 18 years old... and they will probably be better prospects than Vagner in 2 years when they're the same age as Martin is this year.

Anyways, my pick would be Brian Ihnacak.
 

Stada

Registered User
May 24, 2004
14
0
JasonMacIsaac said:
Seeing a player 10 times is more then enough to base a strong opinion on. I am sure counting the memorial cup La-La-Laprise seen him over 10 times.

With all do respect JasonMacIsaac... I have seen ALL the games of the olympiques on road/home and vagner had bad games like everyone once in a while but just based on 10 games im sorry but its pushed, you cant judge a player like that.But, on another way you can say with what you saw he wasnt good thats fine;but never judge a player with that little amount of games.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
Stada said:
With all do respect JasonMacIsaac... I have seen ALL the games of the olympiques on road/home and vagner had bad games like everyone once in a while but just based on 10 games im sorry but its pushed, you cant judge a player like that.But, on another way you can say with what you saw he wasnt good thats fine;but never judge a player with that little amount of games.
10 games is enough to form an opinion.

But not if it's 10 straight games in which a certain player was injured or going through a slump. But I highly doubt Vagner was all that much better in the 50 or so games I didn't see him play. His statistics are poor and he looked lost in the games I saw him play, lost in the QMJHL. He'd be lucky to play in the ECHL.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
When 10 people who have seen him play tell you the same thing its not really a blind opinion.

YOU have never seen him play, therefore you cant talk abou thim as a player versus people, like myself and others, who have watched him over 10 times.

The guy went backwards in 3 years...he is going back to the Czech, i dont even think he could play ECHL.

You might need to read over this thread again. In that particular post you've quoted, I was talking about R.J. Umberger and not being drafted had he re-entered the draft. That post wasn't even about Vagner. Before you jump to conclusions, make sure you know what you're quoting. I was calling my opinion on Umberger not being drafted uninformed, and was pretty much retracting my statement about saying he would have gone undrafted.

As for Vagner, i've seen him play 5-10 times. Maybe not enough for a conclusive judgement, but enough to let me know that he's not your typical 9th Round draft selection.
 

Stada

Registered User
May 24, 2004
14
0
Leafaholix said:
10 games is enough to form an opinion.

But not if it's 10 straight games in which a certain player was injured or going through a slump. But I highly doubt Vagner was all that much better in the 50 or so games I didn't see him play. His statistics are poor and he looked lost in the games I saw him play, lost in the QMJHL. He'd be lucky to play in the ECHL.

Dear Leafaholix,I dont know if you read my posts in the pasts about this kid but the reason he has been "staaling" its because of his injuries and if u go read how come he was unlucky like that u might understand a slice of things of what im saying.And vagner to say that he went to #2 defence to #5-6 ,... thats not true at all... since we have interviws with the coach , on tv , on radio he has said many times that vagner was on the top 2 defenceman... #1 is obrien.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Stada said:
OHHHHHH...this is really good you can judge a player when you saw him 10 times or more.Thats amazing to see that... why dont you base all of his career with more than 10 games..your blind SIR La-La-Laprise...too bad for you hey but i heard he's not going back in czech next year but probably AHL or you never know maybe WHA...You should have went in hull for a couple of years... and ohh yea maybe u are in hull since you know a lot of things about this kid!!!!

Its not just me fool. Hull fans have said the same things.

Did you watch him play? His play went backwards and he wasnt working hard.

Stop waving your pom-poms.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
Stada said:
Dear Leafaholix,I dont know if you read my posts in the pasts about this kid but the reason he has been "staaling" its because of his injuries and if u go read how come he was unlucky like that u might understand a slice of things of what im saying.And vagner to say that he went to #2 defence to #5-6 ,... thats not true at all... since we have interviws with the coach , on tv , on radio he has said many times that vagner was on the top 2 defenceman... #1 is obrien.
Dominic D'Amour is clearly ahead of Vagner.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Caniacforever said:
You might need to read over this thread again. In that particular post you've quoted, I was talking about R.J. Umberger and not being drafted had he re-entered the draft. That post wasn't even about Vagner. Before you jump to conclusions, make sure you know what you're quoting. I was calling my opinion on Umberger not being drafted uninformed, and was pretty much retracting my statement about saying he would have gone undrafted.

As for Vagner, i've seen him play 5-10 times. Maybe not enough for a conclusive judgement, but enough to let me know that he's not your typical 9th Round draft selection.

I apologize, i mised up the arguements.

Point still stands though at age 20 Vagner wouldnt be able to play in the ECHL. I honestly dont think his heart is in it. He was better at age 17 then he is at age 20.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Listen, stop this nonsense about personal attacks or bans and warnings will be laid out. There is NO reason to call somebody a fool. If you want to articulate your argument then do it, just don't put the personal attacks in. Consider this an advance warning.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Stada said:
Dear Leafaholix,I dont know if you read my posts in the pasts about this kid but the reason he has been "staaling" its because of his injuries and if u go read how come he was unlucky like that u might understand a slice of things of what im saying.And vagner to say that he went to #2 defence to #5-6 ,... thats not true at all... since we have interviws with the coach , on tv , on radio he has said many times that vagner was on the top 2 defenceman... #1 is obrien.

He played on the 2nd pairing but he wasnt your 2nd best D. Teams tend to even things off a bit.

D'Amour, Obrien and Roberts were all more consistant through the year.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Caniacforever said:
Listen, stop this nonsense about personal attacks or bans and warnings will be laid out. There is NO reason to call somebody a fool. If you want to articulate your argument then do it, just don't put the personal attacks in. Consider this an advance warning.

Since when does Fool get you a ban. I thought i toned it down.

Its awfully hard to discuss something with someone when they are waving their pom-poms like there is no tommorow.
 

Stada

Registered User
May 24, 2004
14
0
La-La-Laprise said:
Its not just me fool. Hull fans have said the same things.

Did you watch him play? His play went backwards and he wasnt working hard.

Stop waving your pom-poms.

Hey , i knew i would be talking to you soon.Im sorry its to "girly" for a married man like me to wave my pom-poms.Have you ever read my posts im in the area of the olympiques i have seen him play for all the years he has been in hull!!!Your talking big here because its not all hull fans that thinks like that you should watch what your saying there is fans that dislike vagner like there is some that likes him.. But most and foremost they encouraged players of the team no matter what..so dont talk for all the hull fans.He's not like his first year ok.. thats easy to admit but he has shown good hockey too.. and you wrent there to see that!
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Stada said:
Hey , i knew i would be talking to you soon.Im sorry its to "girly" for a married man like me to wave my pom-poms.Have you ever read my posts im in the area of the olympiques i have seen him play for all the years he has been in hull!!!Your talking big here because its not all hull fans that thinks like that you should watch what your saying there is fans that dislike vagner like there is some that likes him.. But most and foremost they encouraged players of the team no matter what..so dont talk for all the hull fans.He's not like his first year ok.. thats easy to admit but he has shown good hockey too.. and you wrent there to see that!

Who cares if you are married. Obviosuly not ALL fans agree with me but not ALL of them agree with you either.

I dont dislike Vagner, i am just talking about he regressed in the last 3 years, if you cant admit that you are a homer. If he didnt regress then Dallas would have signed him. He went from rd 1 to rd 9...how is that not getting worse??
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
Since when does Fool get you a ban. I thought i toned it down.

Its awfully hard to discuss something with someone when they are waving their pom-poms like there is no tommorow.

Fool gets you a ban because it's a personal attack. Any attack made against a person instead of their argument is indeed a personal attack.
 

ZombieMatt

Registered User
May 20, 2002
5,242
1
First of all, you're arguing over something that was completely unrelated to the post initially quoted.

Secondly, I have to say that 10 games is very adequate to determine an idea of what level a player is at. Many people base entire opinions on 4-5 games at an international tournament!

Thirdly, there is certainly two different strains of thought regarding Vagner as a ninth round pick. There is the thought that because he appears to have regressed, and he's older than the other 9th rounders, he is not really to be considered as a 9th round steal. OR, you could look at it from the vantage that somebody once thought he was 1st round material. He HAS performed at that elite level, that somebody saw something in him that thought he was a guy with a lot of potential.

So do you draft the younger guy who played okay this year but was a 9th rounder? Or do you take the older guy who WAS a 1st rounder, hoping that he can one day return to the potential that none of the people surrounding him have ever had?
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Mountie said:
First of all, you're arguing over something that was completely unrelated to the post initially quoted.

Secondly, I have to say that 10 games is very adequate to determine an idea of what level a player is at. Many people base entire opinions on 4-5 games at an international tournament!

Thirdly, there is certainly two different strains of thought regarding Vagner as a ninth round pick. There is the thought that because he appears to have regressed, and he's older than the other 9th rounders, he is not really to be considered as a 9th round steal. OR, you could look at it from the vantage that somebody once thought he was 1st round material. He HAS performed at that elite level, that somebody saw something in him that thought he was a guy with a lot of potential.

So do you draft the younger guy who played okay this year but was a 9th rounder? Or do you take the older guy who WAS a 1st rounder, hoping that he can one day return to the potential that none of the people surrounding him have ever had?

Vagner as a 9th rd pick is worth the risk. If he ever finds his game he could turn out to be a better player than 95% of the 9th round, but the big question is: Will he find his game?

Only time will tell. But at age 20 he better be able to play ECHL next year because he isnt going back to Gatineau (they have 2 euros). Czech league could be an option.
 

Stada

Registered User
May 24, 2004
14
0
La-La-Laprise said:
Who cares if you are married. Obviosuly not ALL fans agree with me but not ALL of them agree with you either.

I dont dislike Vagner, i am just talking about he regressed in the last 3 years, if you cant admit that you are a homer. If he didnt regress then Dallas would have signed him. He went from rd 1 to rd 9...how is that not getting worse??

Well my dear its not what you say about him: he is my worst enemy..he is brutal..he suck.. i dont think you like him at all!!Dallas was supposed to sign him they gave up something good for something better..There is a lot of things that we dont know..Im sure vagner when he was re-entering the draft was supposed to be in the early rounds;what probably happend is the injuries case... thats what made him a 9th rounder.Anyways,I wish him good luck he deserves that chance!
 

Stada

Registered User
May 24, 2004
14
0
Mountie said:
First of all, you're arguing over something that was completely unrelated to the post initially quoted.

Secondly, I have to say that 10 games is very adequate to determine an idea of what level a player is at. Many people base entire opinions on 4-5 games at an international tournament!

Thirdly, there is certainly two different strains of thought regarding Vagner as a ninth round pick. There is the thought that because he appears to have regressed, and he's older than the other 9th rounders, he is not really to be considered as a 9th round steal. OR, you could look at it from the vantage that somebody once thought he was 1st round material. He HAS performed at that elite level, that somebody saw something in him that thought he was a guy with a lot of potential.

So do you draft the younger guy who played okay this year but was a 9th rounder? Or do you take the older guy who WAS a 1st rounder, hoping that he can one day return to the potential that none of the people surrounding him have ever had?

Nice way to see it!!!
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Stada said:
Well my dear its not what you say about him: he is my worst enemy..he is brutal..he suck.. i dont think you like him at all!!Dallas was supposed to sign him they gave up something good for something better..There is a lot of things that we dont know..Im sure vagner when he was re-entering the draft was supposed to be in the early rounds;what probably happend is the injuries case... thats what made him a 9th rounder.Anyways,I wish him good luck he deserves that chance!
If they gave up something good for something better why didnt they take Vagner in rds 3,4,5,6,7 or 8??

He wasnt supposed to be in the Early rounds, it was common knowledge that he would fall out of the first day.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
If they gave up something good for something better why didnt they take Vagner in rds 3,4,5,6,7 or 8??

He wasnt supposed to be in the Early rounds, it was common knowledge that he would fall out of the first day.

Re-entries by rule usually fall two or three rounds above where their talent would dictate they would go. This is because there are usually a lot of teams afraid of a player that another team didn't sign. But in this case, Vagner was lost for a very high pick, but the same formula held true. It's very possible to consider Vagner a 3rd to 4th Round pick that dropped to the 9th due to the fact that he was a re-entry.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Caniacforever said:
Re-entries by rule usually fall two or three rounds above where their talent would dictate they would go. This is because there are usually a lot of teams afraid of a player that another team didn't sign. But in this case, Vagner was lost for a very high pick, but the same formula held true. It's very possible to consider Vagner a 3rd to 4th Round pick that dropped to the 9th due to the fact that he was a re-entry.

Pardon, I meant below wher their talent would dictate.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Caniacforever said:
Re-entries by rule usually fall two or three rounds above where their talent would dictate they would go. This is because there are usually a lot of teams afraid of a player that another team didn't sign. But in this case, Vagner was lost for a very high pick, but the same formula held true. It's very possible to consider Vagner a 3rd to 4th Round pick that dropped to the 9th due to the fact that he was a re-entry.

It could be, but in a weak draft Vagner should have been taken earlier if a team really liked him that much.

Brent moved up from rd 3 to rd 2.
 

Patty Ice

Straight to the Banc
Feb 27, 2002
13,854
3,339
Not California
Leafaholix said:
Martin Vagner would not be the best 9th rounder picked. In 2 years he's gone backwards. He went from a top 2 defenseman for Hull (Gatineau) in his rookie season to dropping back to a #5/6 role this past season.

I've seen him around 10 times this past season as well and cannot say anything positive about him. He was absolutely brutal.

Take into consideration that most of the 9th rounders in 2004 are just 18 years old... and they will probably be better prospects than Vagner in 2 years when they're the same age as Martin is this year.

Anyways, my pick would be Brian Ihnacak.

Heheh my exact position in this whole thread.
 

Patty Ice

Straight to the Banc
Feb 27, 2002
13,854
3,339
Not California
Caniacforever said:
Re-entries by rule usually fall two or three rounds above where their talent would dictate they would go. This is because there are usually a lot of teams afraid of a player that another team didn't sign. But in this case, Vagner was lost for a very high pick, but the same formula held true. It's very possible to consider Vagner a 3rd to 4th Round pick that dropped to the 9th due to the fact that he was a re-entry.

Thats graspin at straws right there. Look we all what our respected team's prospects to succeed but then there is blind homerism. Vagner has done nothing to improve his stock over the past two years and its arguable that he has actually regressed since being drafted. Vagner is not overly skilled so that lack of heart pretty much equals no NHL for him. I hate to reiterate this again, but 29 other teams (including the team that drafted him the first time) passed him over with all their picks (up to the point he was taken). I don't understand how that doesn't tell you something about this player. These scouts are paid professionals not some keyboard jockeys like you and I...so their actions mean more to me than what the majority of posters on here have to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->