HollyG said:
HF Readers said:thank you for all the effort you guys put in!
Seachd said:Next, as in tomorrow?
Don't worry. I haven't complained yet, so I won't start now. Besides, McKeen's is coming out soon with all their rankings to tide us over.Jay Thompson said:Well, the list is being worked out now. Might be several weeks away, but that's better than how late it was last year, aint it?
If you want a committment, you aren't going to get one....but I will say that it is getting closer.SwOOsh said:Oh oh you put a date now in a few weeks if it isn't out expect a lot of people being like "where is the top 50 list" LOL
Pepper said:Good list overall, maybe the most glaring selections were Canucks at #23 (too high) and Nashville #6 (too high) but these lists will never get 100% consensus among the posters.
I don't have it in front of me but they had 8-10 picks in the top 60 in last years draft.balddog66 said:Am I the only person who thinks the Rangers are way too high?
I mean prospect for prospect I didn't think they were that much better off than the leafs...at least the leafs a little depth...both have the same potential for impact players...?
balddog66 said:Am I the only person who thinks the Rangers are way too high?
I mean prospect for prospect I didn't think they were that much better off than the leafs...at least the leafs a little depth...both have the same potential for impact players...?
Enoch said:Nashville at no. 6 is definitely not too high. We have one of the best prospect cores bar none. In fact, I think a case could be made for flip flopping us with either Montreal or Edmonton depending on your perspective.