Redline Report is here..

[Hunter Gathers]

True. And I'm pretty sure that LA made them an offer to move up and get Montoya. So if that's the case, and the Rags really, really wanted Koporski, why didn't they take the trade, move down 6 spots and then add something extra?

They were deadset on Montoya and basically said that unless someone offers the farm if he was at that pick they would take him.

 

[leafaholix*]

No. They were looking for Montoya. There was obviously something they didn't like about Schwarz. Personally, I don't blame them. He reminds me too much of Cechmanek

The Garon trade came in the third round.

He's really nothing like Cechmanek.

He's more like Vokoun/Hasek.

 

[Vinland]

Well said.

Many of the people who complain about Red Line seem to fall in the following categories:

A. Nonsubscribers who really have *no clue* what the content is other than the very small portion that appears monthly in USA Today online, yet take shots as if they subscribed based on about 30% of the total monthly content that comes with the pay service.

B. People with a vested interest in certain players who don't shine in RLR for whatever reason and feel the need to hide behind anonymity to take shots at Woodlief and Co. rather than have the stones to identify themselves and their reasons for trashing Red Line on this forum.

Now, there are some on here who have taken Woodlief to task and been forthright about who they are and why they have an issue with Red Line, and you have to applaud that. You and they know who they are- no need to single anyone out. You don't have to agree with every position taken, but you have to respect someone who doesn't hide behind some internet handle and take potshots like a coward does.
As a military officer, I have always been taught to stand by your convictions like a man, and be prepared to answer for your questions. Not everyone lives by that code, I realize, but I think you abdicate your right to be taken seriously when you use the cloak of anonymity to spread the poison I read on here at times.

I myself have subscribed to Red Line since the 1999 draft issue and have every monthly report and draft guide since. I have gotten to know the staff (and meet up with them every year at the draft) and I value their insights. Do I agree with everything they say or write? No. But the beauty of the service they provide is that they let you draw your own conclusions based on the evidence of their observations, plus what you hear on your own. Not having the resources to scout the hundreds of CHL, NCAA and European games they attend, RLR is a valuable resource for me and the work I do. I would also add that I have knowledge that ISS own business model is based on RLR. If they are so bad at what they do, then why are there several copycat scouting forums out there?

For far too long, I've watched people on this forum- some of whom have been subscribers themselves and blatant rip-off artists of some of the content contained inside RLR- take shots and ridicule the publication. Fine. You know who you are. And I saw you get called out in Raleigh. Don't forget- silence is consent. If you didn't defend yourself when confronted, then you are guilty of the very charges of theft of intellectual property you were accused of. To steal from RLR is one thing, but there is nothing more vile than someone who then uses that knowledge to boost their own standing while tearing down the very source they got it from.

I've watched members of certain player entourages- agent, family member, friend, etc. make a huge deal out of Red Line's 'unprofessionalism' and you know what- based on what I saw from a certain individual who was roundly criticized in their pages recently, it was justified. Again- draw your own conclusions, I did. But, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like one, then it probably is a duck. Is RLR always right about the players it criticizes? No. Do they go too far at times? Possibly. But if I were a scout, I would value that bluntness because it would certainly give me focal point to draw from the next time I went to view that player. Remember- the teams decide whether to roll the dice on a player, not Kyle Woodlief. If a player has been unfairly characterized in the pages of RLR, the teams are smart enough to figure that out.

Ultimately- Kyle Woodlief doesn't decide when these guys get drafted. The teams do. So, why be so concerned about what appears in Red Line? Because of the hype machine, of course. Everyone wants to hear nothing but glowing praise for their favorite player whether he's earned it or not. I remember the great Col. Nathan R. Jessup line from 'A Few Good Men': "You can't handle the truth!" If there is a grain of truth to what is being said about the player, then take some damn responsibility for your shortcomings instead of always looking to blame someone else.

In the end, RLR is an acquired taste. If you like it, then you gladly pay for it and move on. If you don't, then that's fine too. But this continous need to bash RLR because they don't get the placement of picks right is just silly. If you subscribed, then you would know that they almost always correctly identify who will go higher than they have listed, and who will go lower. They aren't in the business of guessing who will be drafted by whom. They are acting like a 31st team who builds its rankings based on what it sees and feels about players. Harping on the Dave Browns of the world is pretty sad and ignorant. After all- they pretty much nailed that Robbie Schremp would fall like a stone, and he did. For every RLR miss, you can easily find players that they were bang on with, so it all washes out.

And if you don't think that every NHL team has their own list that bears little resemblance to the Central Scouting rankings that come out every year, then you need to learn more about the scouting and drafting process. A lot of people here seem to think they are experts on what will and won't happen come draft day. That's all fine and well, but the reality is- teams do their own scouting. They don't depend on RLR and they certainly don't depend on Central to figure out where they are going at the draft. We can all have ideas on who teams want or need, but outside of the top picks, the end result rarely resembles the multitudes of mock drafts that appear here.

I'm biased. I'll admit that. I'm a satisfied subscriber and friend to the staff. That friendship developed over time, and only after I had established a business relationship first. If that makes me a 'trusty sidekick,' as I was once called by someone here, then so be it. But because I've been with them for so long, I can go back and look at players that they have absolutely nailed, when others got it wrong. And just as they have been right, they have also been very wrong. But it still doesn't change the fact that their product provides observations and insight that you couldn't get anywhere else until other knockoffs started cropping up. Competition is good, but let us all not forget who started it. RLR isn't perfect, but it doesn't deserve some of the criticism it gets either.

Kirk Luedeke

WOW
rebuttal??????

 

[Panopticon]

About Redline, where's Teemu Laakso from that list?

Still in Juniors, not getting much exposure there. We'll see him on that list after U20 (Yes, he made the team. This will be confirmed later.) and especially the U18 WJC. I expect him to dominate the U18 WJC even more than he did last year since last year he played with a groin/thigh injury and, well, you gain some experience in a year as well.

Laakso will also play his first SM-liiga game on Tuesday (tomorrow), I just heard. Or at least he will be in the line-up, can't promise ice time.

 

[gb701]

I've had a bit of time to digest the list. My thoughts:

Red Line has had a bit of a history for being a bit of a 'What Have You Done For Me Lately?' publication, which is fine. Picks like Radulov at #3 earlier this year may have raised some eyebrows, and Woodlief likes to make some shock value picks. Most of his lists, beyond that, are pretty good. However I have several issues with this one.

The first is the lack of Daniel Bertram. Now make no mistake, I'm not a huge Bertram fan. Snubbing the Vancouver Giants to play in the AJAHL & go on to the NCAA doesn't get into my good books being the greedy hockey fan from Vancouver Island that I am. But ignoring his huge scoring potential is a mistake, and guys like Ryan O'Marra do not deserve under any circumstances to be placed ahead of Bertram simply because he hasn't played much yet.

The second issue I have with the list is JP Levasseur. He had a great tournament at the U-17's, but a lot of guys have had good tournaments (Cogliano at the U-18's anyone?). I understand it's a slightly different situation with Cogliano rusting away in the OPJHL (or is he still there? Anyone have a clue?), but what exactly does Levasseur have over Price? And does anyone really think he belongs ahead of Jack Johnson? This kid needs to prove himself more to get this high of a ranking I'd say. I have him in the teens at the moment until he proves me wrong.

Other than that, I don't really have too many complaints. O'Marra raised my eyebrows and Parent I'm not sure on, but other than that & those two minor complaints, not a bad list.

Good comments. I also noticed that Bertram has gone AWOL by heading south, despite having a pretty strong start in a very strong program, and putting up some numbers in games where scoring is very hard to come by. Certainly the Americans are paying attention if you watch the press and websites following NCAA, and I suspect the NHL teams are as well. Look for Bertram to be a sleeper coming in way higher in the draft than anyone predicts. For what it might be worth, for those of us who were there and not swayed by the hype machines that were in full force, he was the best '87 at the CWG a couple of years ago and has the potential to step up with the best of them.