special draft

[matlamenace]

If you have to do a draft with the players wich are considered rookies this season, what would be your 10 first picks?

1)Crosby
2)Ovechkin
3)Phaneuf
4)...
.
.

please answer guys!

Click to read more...

 

[Synergy27]

1.) Ovechkin
2.) Crosby
3.) Lundqvist
4.) Phaneuf
5.) Svatos
6.) Prucha
7.) Meszaros
8.) Vanek
9.) Richards
10.) Steen

 

[clay]

1.) Ovechkin
2.) Crosby
3.) Lundqvist
4.) Phaneuf
5.) Svatos
6.) Prucha
7.) Meszaros
8.) Vanek
9.) Richards
10.) Steen

1) Ovechkin
2) Crosby
3) Phaneuf
4) Lundqvist
5) Meszaros
6) Carter
7) Svatos
8) Toivonen
9) Prucha
10) Vanek

 

[Nich]

1) ovechkin
2) crosby
3) lundqvist
4) phanuef
5) svatos
6) vanek
7) prucha
8) steen
9) lehtonen
10) meszaros

 

[Skroob*]

man, if only the rangers could have 2 "top 10" rookie players every year.

actually, with Montoya and Staal, we could see it again next year.

 

[TheZherdev]

man, if only the rangers could have 2 "top 10" rookie players every year.

actually, with Montoya and Staal, we could see it again next year.

Ok now we're just rubbing in.

 

[Pothier]

Kaigorodov will be the 2nd best rookie in the NHL next year behind Malkin. Just watch.

But for this year:

1. Crosby
2. Ovechkin
3. Lundqvist
4. Phaneuf
5. Prucha
6. Svatos
7. Vanek
8. Meszaros
9. Richards
10. Steen

 

[revolverjgw]

1 Crosby
2 Ovechkin
3 Phaneuf
4 Lundqvist
5 Vanek
6 Svatos
7 Prucha
8 Richards
9 Meszaros
10 Steen

 

[matlamenace]

I thought Vanek would have been higher on this list and before Svatos

No love for him?

 

[Lecavilier_4]

1 Ovechkin
2 Crosby
3 Lundqvist
4 Phaneuf
5 Svatos
6 Vanek
7 Seabrook (Rookie right?)
8 Steen
9 Richards
10 Prucha

 

[WVP]

I believe M.A. Fleury is still considered a rookie.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I believe M.A. Fleury is still considered a rookie.

I do not think so. You would hear him mentioned for the Calder otherwise - he is every bit as impressive as Lundqvist, in fact with that defense in front of him I would say markedly more so. I did not take the time to look up the ins and outs of the rules because common sense says he is not for the reasons stated above.

 

[WVP]

I do not think so. You would hear him mentioned for the Calder otherwise - he is every bit as impressive as Lundqvist, in fact with that defense in front of him I would say markedly more so. I did not take the time to look up the ins and outs of the rules because common sense says he is not for the reasons stated above.

Fleury hasn't played enough this year to be a Calder candidate. Even without mentioning AO, Fleury would have no chance anyway with Crosby on the same roster.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Fleury hasn't played enough this year to be a Calder candidate. Even without mentioning AO, Fleury would have no chance anyway with Crosby on the same roster.

I do not think that Lundqvist has a real chance either, but I can not see how Fluery could not be considered on par with Lundqvist if he could have been considered at all. So next year he will be a candidate then? What are the rules?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

1.) Crosby
2.) Ovechkin
3.) Phaneuf
4.) Carter
5.) Lehtonen
6.) Sutter
7.) Vanek
8.) Parise
9.) Richards
10.) Olesz

 

[Wondercarrot]

Parise??

Pierre? is that you?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Parise??

Pierre? is that you?

Just because he didn't get off to a blazing start doesn't mean he is not worthy of a top pick. Once again I must remember this is HF...they don't understand the concept of progression.

 

[WVP]

I do not think that Lundqvist has a real chance either, but I can not see how Fluery could not be considered on par with Lundqvist if he could have been considered at all. So next year he will be a candidate then? What are the rules?

I believe he's eligible for the Calder, but what I meant is he's not going to play enough to be a factor in the race. Say if Ovechkin gets hurt and plays 50 games but Crosby plays the whole season. Crosby would probably win (or vice versa to avoid Crosby-AO Round 68,345,841) even if AO was playing a bit better.

There's a chance this becomes mute if Fleury plays the same percentage of games as he has been recently. He's played 15 so far, so with 43 left I suppose he could finish with 40-45 starts.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Just because he didn't get off to a blazing start doesn't mean he is not worthy of a top pick. Once again I must remember this is HF...they don't understand the concept of progression.

i understand it quite well thank you.
im still surprised he made it in to a top 10 list.

 

[Pothier]

i understand it quite well thank you.
im still surprised he made it in to a top 10 list.

Same here. I can probably name 20 rookies that have played better than Parise this year.

 

[Epsilon]

I do not think so. You would hear him mentioned for the Calder otherwise - he is every bit as impressive as Lundqvist, in fact with that defense in front of him I would say markedly more so. I did not take the time to look up the ins and outs of the rules because common sense says he is not for the reasons stated above.

That's just pure homerism. Maybe if you cherry-pick his good games and ignore the bad ones.

Lundqvist: 14-5-5 2.14 .925

Fleury: 5-7-3 3.14 .905

 

[Jaded-Fan]

That's just pure homerism. Maybe if you cherry-pick his good games and ignore the bad ones.

Lundqvist: 14-5-5 2.14 .925

Fleury: 5-7-3 3.14 .905

It was more ignoring what the Calder is about, results not talent/potential. There is no way Fleury is not the propect that Lundqvist is. I had that more in mind when I posted than the actual Calder, which when pointed out, you are entirely right about.

 

[Epsilon]

It was more ignoring what the Calder is about, results not talent/potential. There is no way Fleury is not the propect that Lundqvist is. I had that more in mind when I posted than the actual Calder, which when pointed out, you are entirely right about.

I assumed you were talking about specifically this season. I definitely agree that Fleury is a better long-term prospect than Lundqvist. It seemed most of the lists were basically "Calder rankings" since they were mostly missing Fleury and Lehtonen while putting in good but not great prospects like Prucha.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I assumed you were talking about specifically this season. I definitely agree that Fleury is a better long-term prospect than Lundqvist. It seemed most of the lists were basically "Calder rankings" since they were mostly missing Fleury and Lehtonen while putting in good but not great prospects like Prucha.

No, your assumption was right. I was not thinking when I originally posted about what the Calder voting was about, as I said above.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Same here. I can probably name 20 rookies that have played better than Parise this year.

Name the rookies better then Thornton in his first year. Parise is stuck behind two centers in NJ and was forced onto the wing where he is playing a position he is not used to.