Washington Capitals Prospects

Status
Not open for further replies.

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
andora said:
jeez patrick... you're taking too much guff here ;)..

Yeah, far be it for anyone to question the old "Your prospects are good because you had salary dumps" line. Even when provided with evidence that they haven't helped us that much, we still rant about it. Of course, this is not the REAL NHL I guess. Patrick was probably just speaking hypothetically. Helps us avoid accountability for wrong or difficult positions. That is, hypothetically of course.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Marshall said:
The Caps have two second-round picks in '05, their own and Ottawa's. The second-rounder from the Nylander deal is in '06.

I believe the Caps are also owed a compensation pick from the NHL for the Nylander signing. Will be based on financial numbers but ~ a 3rd. Marshall is correct, Boston's 2nd is 2006 in the Nylander deal. Our 3rd this year left in the Barthel deal.
 

Captain Conservative

Registered User
Apr 1, 2004
3,842
1
My Blue Heaven
borro said:
The Caps could go Johnson. McPhee's history indicates he thinks defenseman can be added in other ways (free agency maybe?). I see a Crosby, Brule, or Latendresse as much more likely. The Caps two remaining needs are a first class center and a #1 dman. Even though Johnson will be a really good defenseman, he doesn't fill one of our 2 primary needs. Crosby/Brule/Latendresse does. If I were the Caps I'd do this:

Try real hard for Aucoin and Zhitnik as free agents (if that happens). Sign Witt and promise to trade him if he is not happy. Deal Kolzig to Vancouver for a young player and picks and sign a stopgap goalie (Potvin?) The Caps will likely be a competititor for Kessell not because their talent won't be improved drastically, but they are very young. Their defenseman are not ready yet (with the possible exception of Eminger, Yonkman, and Morrisonn). Green, Shultz, Lepisto, Hedman et al need more time. Some of the forwards (Fleischmann, Johannson etc. are farther away then hoped. Klepis should be ready. The biggest issue is getting NHL ready defensemen so we are not awful. We also need to upgrade our grit/aggression level. I look for us to use other picks to do this.

God help us.


WORST.
POST.
EVAR!
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Captain Conservative said:
God help us.


WORST.
POST.
EVAR!

No worst post ever (ever spelled incorrectly) is giving an opinion without any reasons. Makes people think you just don't know or don't have any.
 

moosefan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,890
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
borro said:
I agree that Johnson will be hard to pass up. My feeling is he is a really good #2 dman upside. That doesn't address any of our 2 primary needs: First line center-#1 dman. Now, adding an Aucoin in Free Agency would put me all over Brule if we can't get Crosby. You know GMGM's WHL preference. It would upgrade our defense however.


Iwould think Johnson is a #1 potential D-Man...seen him myself a few times and I think he is the best young d-man I have ever scouted out.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
moosefan said:
Iwould think Johnson is a #1 potential D-Man...seen him myself a few times and I think he is the best young d-man I have ever scouted out.

That's pretty cool. This may be an obscure point but the Caps have several dmen that are smallish (by NHL standards, please don't run the litany of all the good small dmen) side but have skills. To have a more balanced d they need some bigger dmen to absorb the grind of the long season and playoff time. This is not a knock on Johnson. He is only 6'1 though. Green is 6'1. Let's say those 2 were paired. They might struggle against the larger players of the league. The Caps have been there (Gonchar,etc.etc.etc.) and found it didn't work for them. They need to add some big guys which is why they drafted Schultz even before Green. Best young dman you have ever seen? That's pretty doggone impressive. If that is so, then the Caps would be wise to pick him. I still see him likely to go #2. Caps will likely be 1 or 3. They go Crosby at 1, which is their other need. At 3 they take Johnson or Brule, whomever is available. At 4 or worse, they might trade or trade down and grab Price, who Olie Kolzig has been in their ear about.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Z-Diddy said:
Can never have too much of a good thing. If your General Manager and Head Scouts draft strategy revolves around selecting the best player available. ex. Doug Maclean


Best player available is a bunch of hogwash fed to the masses to brainwash them. How many of us think they really get the "best player available?" Not many of us. When we do mocks, we all choose someone different-move guys up and down. The BPA is a line that excuses mediocrity or bad choices. It's like invoking "God told me to do it". You can't question someone taking the best player available, just like you don't question someone who claims inspiration. Was Daigle the best player available? No. They pick the player they want. Maybe we should have an all cliche draft. We'll all pick the BPA. Can someone please tell me how they compare a goaltender to a dman to a forward? What is the adjustment for someone playing in the WHL vs the QMJHL? How do Europeans fit in? How about Tier 2 guys? The fact is they rate players not different than the NFL does. Some may actually stick to that at draft. I suspect the scouts have more impact when it comes time to taking 4-5 guys who are close. BPA is a figment of imagination. They draft for need, player style, and what their scouts are sold on. Sometimes they get the BPA. Many more times they get the best sales pitch.
 

Captain Conservative

Registered User
Apr 1, 2004
3,842
1
My Blue Heaven
borro said:
No worst post ever (ever spelled incorrectly) is giving an opinion without any reasons. Makes people think you just don't know or don't have any.


Given your reputation and the post I quoted, there is no need for me to give reasons. Evar=ever w/extra emphasis and a sardonic spin, just so you know.

borro said:
Best player available is a bunch of hogwash fed to the masses to brainwash them. How many of us think they really get the "best player available?" Not many of us. When we do mocks, we all choose someone different-move guys up and down. The BPA is a line that excuses mediocrity or bad choices. It's like invoking "God told me to do it". You can't question someone taking the best player available, just like you don't question someone who claims inspiration. Was Daigle the best player available? No. They pick the player they want. Maybe we should have an all cliche draft.

Stop trying to analyze things, please. Its unbearable to read, really. This post has earned you the distinct honor of being the first member to go on my ignore list.

Welcome!
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
borro said:
Best player available is a bunch of hogwash fed to the masses to brainwash them. How many of us think they really get the "best player available?" Not many of us. When we do mocks, we all choose someone different-move guys up and down. The BPA is a line that excuses mediocrity or bad choices. It's like invoking "God told me to do it". You can't question someone taking the best player available, just like you don't question someone who claims inspiration. Was Daigle the best player available? No. They pick the player they want. Maybe we should have an all cliche draft. We'll all pick the BPA. Can someone please tell me how they compare a goaltender to a dman to a forward? What is the adjustment for someone playing in the WHL vs the QMJHL? How do Europeans fit in? How about Tier 2 guys? The fact is they rate players not different than the NFL does. Some may actually stick to that at draft. I suspect the scouts have more impact when it comes time to taking 4-5 guys who are close. BPA is a figment of imagination. They draft for need, player style, and what their scouts are sold on. Sometimes they get the BPA. Many more times they get the best sales pitch.

Huh? I can't believe you've misinterpreted the phrase "best player available" so badly.

Best player available means taking the player your scouts like best regardless of position. That's all it means. You obviously don't understand the concept at all.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Flames Draft Watcher said:
Huh? I can't believe you've misinterpreted the phrase "best player available" so badly.

Best player available means taking the player your scouts like best regardless of position. That's all it means. You obviously don't understand the concept at all.

Im going to have to agree with you here....I have no idea what he was saying....BPA is simply the best player regardless of position/need
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Captain Conservative said:
Given your reputation and the post I quoted, there is no need for me to give reasons. Evar=ever w/extra emphasis and a sardonic spin, just so you know.



Stop trying to analyze things, please. Its unbearable to read, really. This post has earned you the distinct honor of being the first member to go on my ignore list.

Welcome!

Go back to playing D&D child...
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Flames Draft Watcher said:
Huh? I can't believe you've misinterpreted the phrase "best player available" so badly.

Best player available means taking the player your scouts like best regardless of position. That's all it means. You obviously don't understand the concept at all.

It's a line used by GM's that is meaningless. I know exactly what they want you to think it is. I stand by my assestment that it is a bunch of hogwash. Please show me which GM's really took the best players available. It's the old Mark Twain trick of claiming to be an expert. Doug MacLean is some freakin genius becuase he invokes "Best player available". Nope...don't buy it. Now put some names on a list and make completely random selections. Might be just as good.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Funny how Captain Conservative talks about my reputation. Well I'm going to crown you the first Annual Big Train poster award for complete lack of content. Enjoy my ignore list, you have earned it!
 

Vinland

Registered User
Dec 3, 2004
577
0
King of Vinland
borro said:
It's a line used by GM's that is meaningless. I know exactly what they want you to think it is. I stand by my assestment that it is a bunch of hogwash. Please show me which GM's really took the best players available. It's the old Mark Twain trick of claiming to be an expert. Doug MacLean is some freakin genius becuase he invokes "Best player available". Nope...don't buy it. Now put some names on a list and make completely random selections. Might be just as good.

LOL :shakehead
 

Squeaky

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
3,196
0
Toronto
borro said:
It's a line used by GM's that is meaningless. I know exactly what they want you to think it is. I stand by my assestment that it is a bunch of hogwash. Please show me which GM's really took the best players available. It's the old Mark Twain trick of claiming to be an expert. Doug MacLean is some freakin genius becuase he invokes "Best player available". Nope...don't buy it. Now put some names on a list and make completely random selections. Might be just as good.

Gainey took Chipchura last year in the first round. Sure, he sorta fit a team need (size in a forward prospect) but anyone can see the real weakness in the habs system is on the blueline, and that Meszaros kid was still on the table...

Obviously they don't know who the BPA is, but they still draft according to who they believe is the best available player. If they're wrong BPA isn't a defense, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it that way.

Names on a list and make some random selections? What? Are you saying that they should just draft randomly, rather than scouting people and trying to decide which is the best player?
 

WVP

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
13,399
0
I can't believe I'm responding to this...

borro said:
It's a line used by GM's that is meaningless. I know exactly what they want you to think it is.

No, you really don't. By any means.

I stand by my assestment that it is a bunch of hogwash. Please show me which GM's really took the best players available.

When they say this, they're not telling their fans or the hockey world that they got the best player in the draft. It means they took the guy who is, in their opinion, the best prospect available when they made the pick. You ever hear of a team's list, or board, on draft day? This is a team's ranking of the prospects they like from the draft. If they have a 'best player available' mentality (you mention MacLean), this means they take the highest player on their list who hasn't been drafted yet.

The alternative to this is going into the draft with the purpose of picking up help in certain postions. For example, nevermind...

It's the old Mark Twain trick of claiming to be an expert. Doug MacLean is some freakin genius becuase he invokes "Best player available". Nope...don't buy it. Now put some names on a list and make completely random selections. Might be just as good.

:help:
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Squeaky said:
Gainey took Chipchura last year in the first round. Sure, he sorta fit a team need (size in a forward prospect) but anyone can see the real weakness in the habs system is on the blueline, and that Meszaros kid was still on the table...

Obviously they don't know who the BPA is, but they still draft according to who they believe is the best available player. If they're wrong BPA isn't a defense, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it that way.

Names on a list and make some random selections? What? Are you saying that they should just draft randomly, rather than scouting people and trying to decide which is the best player?

Isn't he capable of saying he chose the player they had rated the highest? To say he was the best player available makes a claim whether intentional or not. What I am saying is the "Best Player Available" usually is not. In hindsight, Meszaros might go to the Habs. So, Gainey did NOT choose the best player available. He chose the one he wanted/had rated higher. That is what I said.

Those who disagree, let's go through the draft from 2004 and see who really chose the best player available. Few do. I don't think because they don't intend to "use" BPA as a defense, they recognize we live in a world of perceptions. You could easily lose your job because of the perception you were not doing a good job. Ask a few old Yankees managers. It seems sacrilege to even question those who say they pick the best player available. Reality is it is the quality of their picks that matters too.

Let me give an example. The Caps drafted Boyd Gordon a few years ago. I screamed because I wanted Babchuck. Many of the Cap fans now defend the choice. I think it sucked because I thought he may have been there on our next pick. McPhee says he picks "Best Player Available." It was Babchuck at that time. Nothing against Gordon, but let's call a spade a spade. This was "our scouts like this guy" and not a BPA pick. Sometimes it works-sometimes it doesn't. It's like Blake Wheeler. Maybe the pick will come to be a great one in time. It was not a BPA pick and neither was Gordon. Call it a lust pick. Some might say Valabik was one. They "lusted" after aggression. Most say not the BPA.

As for the random picks, if you took a projected first round put the names on slips of paper and drew one like a lottery ball, some folks would be better off. Yes, that was sarcastic. I also happen to believe it is true.

It's kind of a crazy viewpoint. I just want people to think when they make such claims.
 

Thornton97

Registered User
Nov 18, 2004
893
21
Carrollton, TX
"our scouts like this guy" is the best player available in the eyes of that team. Why is that so difficult to see? Obviously all of us can look back in hindsight and see that a pick our team thought was the BPA at the time didn't turn out that way. That is how the draft works. In the past 19 months, we can see what happened with Coburn versus Phaneuf. Coburn, at that time, was the BPA to Atlanta. He was very, very safe. Still is. Of course, Atlanta can look back now and say...humm, we should have grabbed Phaneuf. But that's ridiculous.

I just don't see how your argument "holds water." You seem to be saying that a team can't call a prospect the BPA to it without at least a few years of post-draft observation.

On the same note, can I ask how many hours you spent in arenas watching Gordon play? I would suspect that those scouts spent many, many hours in small, cold arenas watching him play and collectively came to the educated conclusion that he was the BPA at that time. Of course, at the time you disagreed which is fine. That is our right as fans. But it's not like they didn't spend the time researching. Washington certainly didn't through a damn dart at a chart and somehow pick off Boyd Gordon. At that time, he was the BPA to Washington in the eyes of the organization.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
Thornton97 said:
"our scouts like this guy" is the best player available in the eyes of that team. Why is that so difficult to see? Obviously all of us can look back in hindsight and see that a pick our team thought was the BPA at the time didn't turn out that way. That is how the draft works. In the past 19 months, we can see what happened with Coburn versus Phaneuf. Coburn, at that time, was the BPA to Atlanta. He was very, very safe. Still is. Of course, Atlanta can look back now and say...humm, we should have grabbed Phaneuf. But that's ridiculous.

I just don't see how your argument "holds water." You seem to be saying that a team can't call a prospect the BPA to it without at least a few years of post-draft observation.

On the same note, can I ask how many hours you spent in arenas watching Gordon play? I would suspect that those scouts spent many, many hours in small, cold arenas watching him play and collectively came to the educated conclusion that he was the BPA at that time. Of course, at the time you disagreed which is fine. That is our right as fans. But it's not like they didn't spend the time researching. Washington certainly didn't through a damn dart at a chart and somehow pick off Boyd Gordon. At that time, he was the BPA to Washington in the eyes of the organization.

No, I think they were looking for a player of a certain type. I think in reality they would have said he was NOT the best player available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->