KStewart113 said:No offence...but are you a Leafs fan?
-31- said:The strengths of the Rangers organizationlly are in goal on defense and in bottom six forwards. They have a crying need for top line offensive talent. If players like [Tukonen and Olesz] are on the board, I serious doubt the Rangers would select a [goalie] who projects to be no more than what they currently have in the system - [Lundqvist and Blackburn] both qualify as potential [starting goalies]. It is no secret the Rangers not only have a crying need for a first line forward, but, they have made it known they want a first line center. If [Tukonen] is on the board, he smacks as a Christer Rockstrom-type pick. I would be shocked if the Rangers took [Montoya] over him.
Please, editMr Bugg said:8) Phoenix: Jiri Tlusty.
...
Statline: (Kladno, Swe) 44 GP, 7 G, 3 A, 10 Pts, 51 PIM
jas said:That would all fine and dandy, but, you left out information. Unlike defense this year, where we have Tytuin already established, with Staal and Pock possibilities to make next year's squad, and Sauer and Baranka not that far behind, the goalie situation in 2004 was a very clouded picture. There was the unknown (to the public) extent of Blackburn's injury, whyile the Rangers were not yet convinced they would bringing over Lundqvist. Plus, Montoya was projected as the best goalie on the board in most places. Shutron does not project as the possible elite talent that Montoya did.
Lowetide said:Great job as always Mr Bugg. Has to be tough sledding with no Oil pick but never fear they'll trade into the 25-40 range I'd bet.
of course not, it's pick 20, not pick 6. I'm just saying that if you think the Rangers will pass on a defenseman that they really like because he's a defenseman, you're ignoring history.jas said:That would all fine and dandy, but, you left out information. Unlike defense this year, where we have Tytuin already established, with Staal and Pock possibilities to make next year's squad, and Sauer and Baranka not that far behind, the goalie situation in 2004 was a very clouded picture. There was the unknown (to the public) extent of Blackburn's injury, whyile the Rangers were not yet convinced they would bringing over Lundqvist. Plus, Montoya was projected as the best goalie on the board in most places. Shutron does not project as the possible elite talent that Montoya did.
Bluenote13 said:Not the best mock, but not the worst.
Good layout, but where's the heights/weights?
-31- said:of course not, it's pick 20, not pick 6. I'm just saying that if you think the Rangers will pass on a defenseman that they really like because he's a defenseman, you're ignoring history.
-31- said:of course not, it's pick 20, not pick 6. I'm just saying that if you think the Rangers will pass on a defenseman that they really like because he's a defenseman, you're ignoring history.
me tooJon Prescription said:Well, I hope I can say they'd pass on Shutron solely becuase he's not worth it there.
jas said:No, I'm actually saying the Rangers would pass on Shutron based upon the perceptions made by the author of this mock draft.
King'sPawn said:I'm sorry, but are you serious?
The guy takes the time to put the assets and flaws, plus his opinion of peak potential in each player, and you want more? Information which can quickly be looked up anyways.
Bluenote13 said:Well, thats my point, if you're putting in the kitchen sink you might as well tell someone what these measurements are, no?
Lacking in every position on the farm, the Lightning need the most help up front. Very few of their forward prospects have a hope of cracking the NHL, making gambles necessary.