2003 draft Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

PanthersRule96

Registered User
Jun 15, 2003
6,048
0
Visit site
Brodeur said:
Dudley didn't pull in that much from the Penguins.

Penguins:
1st overall (Marc-Andre Fleury)
3rd rounder, 73rd overall (Daniel Carcillo)

Panthers:
3rd overall (Nathan Horton)
2nd rounder, 55th overall (Stefan Meyer)
LW Mikael Samuelsson - since non-qualified
Mikael Samuelsson at the time of the trade was a solid player in PIT for the short time he was there and was beginning to look like a 15 goal scorer and he had some value. Stefan Meyer was a fantastic pick as look at what he's doing in the WHL right now. Also, O'Sullivan went 56 so that was a valuable pick. He didn't pull THAT much, but he got stuff of decent value when he didn't give up anything as he got Horton and Meyer and then Anthony Stewart after dealing away his other second rounders because of this trade compared to just Horton and Kreps and another second rounder.
 

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
orcatown said:
If the draft was redone this is the order I see. Based on who I would most want.

1. Horton
2. Zherdev
3. Bergeron
4. Phnaeuf
5. Staal
6. Carter
7. Suter
8. Parise
9. Michalek
11. Kesler
12. Burns
13. Vanek
14. Richards
15. Getzlaf
16. Coburn
17. Kostitsyn
18. Fehr
19. Belle
20. Seabrooke
21. Brown
22. Perry
23. O'Sullivan
24. Weber
25. Vrana
26. Fritsche
27. Stone
28. Stuart
29. Bernier
30. Stewart

I don't see Polliot, Tambellini, Nilsson,Eaves, Boyle in the top round. Admit Eaves and Boyle are doing ok at Boston College but think others have moved ahead of them) Jessiman is MIA so hard to rate his progress

I think this open to a lot of debate.


1. Staal
2. Zherdev
3. Fleury
4. Phaneuf
5. Parise
6. Horton
7. Vanek
8. Carter
9. Suter
10. Bergeron
11. Getzlaf
12. Brown
13. Michalek (only because of injurey)
14. Kostitsyn
15. Coburn
16. Bernier
17. Kesler
18. Burns
19. Stewart
20. Richards
21. Seabrook
22. Ericksson
23. Fritsche
24. O'Sullivan
25. Stuart
26. Perry
27. Stone
28. Nilsson
29. Pouliot
30. Klein
 

hfboardsuser

Registered User
Nov 18, 2004
12,280
0
Staal 9th is a freakin joke.

I've yet to see him play, and I didn't want to put him into the top 5 just because, but yet I'd heard so many good things that I didn't want him to slip out of the top 10.
 

CJHF13

Registered User
I've only seen a few play so, I'll only list them. This is the order of "being impressed"

1. Zherdev
2. Fleury (attended the Season opener vs LA last year...AMAZING game by MAF)
3. Staal
4. Horton
5. Parise
6. Bergeron
7. Suter
8. Michalek
9. O'Sullivan

Like I said, those are just the ones that I've seen play or remember having seen play...I'm definatly not saying that's the order they should have been drafted in just, out of those nine, the most impressive to least.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,936
Halifax, NS
X-SHARKIE said:
1. Staal
2. Zherdev
3. Fleury
4. Phaneuf
5. Parise
6. Horton
7. Vanek
8. Carter
9. Suter
10. Bergeron
11. Getzlaf
12. Brown
13. Michalek (only because of injurey)
14. Kostitsyn
15. Coburn
16. Bernier
17. Kesler
18. Burns
19. Stewart
20. Richards
21. Seabrook
22. Ericksson
23. Fritsche
24. O'Sullivan
25. Stuart
26. Perry
27. Stone
28. Nilsson
29. Pouliot
30. Klein
Great list
 

AgentNaslund*

Guest
orcatown said:
If the draft was redone this is the order I see. Based on who I would most want.

1. Horton
2. Zherdev
3. Bergeron
4. Phnaeuf
5. Staal
6. Carter
7. Suter
8. Parise
9. Michalek
11. Kesler
12. Burns
13. Vanek
14. Richards
15. Getzlaf
16. Coburn
17. Kostitsyn
18. Fehr
19. Belle
20. Seabrooke
21. Brown
22. Perry
23. O'Sullivan
24. Weber
25. Vrana
26. Fritsche
27. Stone
28. Stuart
29. Bernier
30. Stewart

I don't see Polliot, Tambellini, Nilsson,Eaves, Boyle in the top round. Admit Eaves and Boyle are doing ok at Boston College but think others have moved ahead of them) Jessiman is MIA so hard to rate his progress

I think this open to a lot of debate.

I like your list. Those who think Kesler is too high. He is outscoring other prospects like Vanek, Horton. You think the Point per game at the AHL as a 20 year old is a fluke? He had to play with a right winger, for half the season that was producing nothing the entire time he was his line mate. The 2nd line consisted of Kesler and Goren that was producing for the 2nd line. Since then, they moved Heerema as a 2nd liner, and Kesler is once again beggining to tear it up. He basically discovered an offensively ability, he never had before.

Fleury should be a top 10. I watched a game between Pittsburgh and Detroit, were Pittsburgh won. He won the game for Pittsburgh. Put it this way, every game that Fleury won with the Penguins, that game, Penguins were badly outshot.

I put Fleury at 7, I put Staal at number 1, hes playing real real good at the AHL right now. Cobourn ahead of Seabrook? I switch those guys up. I switch up Parice and Vanek. I dont know why is Brent Burns so high up. I switch him up with Dustin Brown right away. After that, Switch up Getzlaf with Kesler at 15.
 

monster_bertuzzi

registered user
May 26, 2003
32,733
3
Vancouver
Visit site
1.Fleury
2.Zherdev
3.Horton
4.Staal
5.Bergeron
6.Phaneuf
7.Michalek
8.Vanek
9.Carter
10.Suter
11.Kostitsyn
12.Coburn
13.Parise
14.Getzlaf
15.Stewart
16.Kesler
17.O'Sullivan
18.Stuart
19.Brown
20.Seabrook
21.Fehr
22.Bernier
23.Weber
24.Richards
25.Fritsche
26.Perry
27.Pouliot
28.Eriksson
29.Burns
30.Nilsson
 

Big McLargehuge

Fragile Traveler
May 9, 2002
72,188
7,741
S. Pasadena, CA
PanthersRule said:
Mikael Samuelsson at the time of the trade was a solid player in PIT for the short time he was there and was beginning to look like a 15 goal scorer and he had some value.

No he wasn't, we were looking for a way to dump his worthless ass. He had 2 points in 22 games that season. He was downright horrible after coming in the Kovalev trade.
 

PanthersRule96

Registered User
Jun 15, 2003
6,048
0
Visit site
Handsome B. Wonderful said:
No he wasn't, we were looking for a way to dump his worthless ass. He had 2 points in 22 games that season. He was downright horrible after coming in the Kovalev trade.
He was good in NY though before the trade so he wasn't valueless. One of those change of scenery type of players. But he sure did suck in FLA untill the end of the year.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
PanthersRule said:
He was good in NY though before the trade so he wasn't valueless. One of those change of scenery type of players. But he sure did suck in FLA untill the end of the year.


Agreed, he was of small value, but had some potential. It is only in hindsight that he is completely valueless. Looking back though Fleury was only the first pick because FLA did not need him and the Pens wanted to jump over number two, who would have taken him. That was the reason for the relatively small cost, a second and basically a throw in (again, the Pens would not have thrown in a third or even a fourth I think, this guy was about as much value to them I believe as a low round draft pick). Fleury was seen, and likely still would be seen as between 3 and 5 in a very deep draft. I still think that almost any GM would be thrilled to have him as their goaltender of the future.
 

UWSaint

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
42
0
Wisconsin
The funny thing about prospects/young players is you never really know how good of a player a prospect/young player can be until Mike Milbury has his rights and gives up on him. . . .
 

J17 Vs Proclamation

Registered User
Oct 29, 2004
8,025
2
Reading.
Jaded-Fan said:
Agreed, he was of small value, but had some potential. It is only in hindsight that he is completely valueless. Looking back though Fleury was only the first pick because FLA did not need him and the Pens wanted to jump over number two, who would have taken him. That was the reason for the relatively small cost, a second and basically a throw in (again, the Pens would not have thrown in a third or even a fourth I think, this guy was about as much value to them I believe as a low round draft pick). Fleury was seen, and likely still would be seen as between 3 and 5 in a very deep draft. I still think that almost any GM would be thrilled to have him as their goaltender of the future.

As much as i think Fleury is overated he still goes top 5. 2nd round? :lol
Fleury had one bad mistake and now is out in the cold. Still a very good prospect. He shouldn't have gone #1 but still.
Real glad that we got Horton. I think personall i would Zherdev ahead of him. The top 5 are so close on potential though. All have a similiar upsides.
FLA did in my view get a good deal with Pittsburgh. Getting Meyer was great. In an ordinary year he'd have gone late first round.

A lot of you guys are putting Kesler to high. He has the upsided of a 2nd liner or a very good 3rd liner. Since the 03 draft was sooo deep i'd be looking for more in the 1st round than that.
 

Til the End of Time

Registered User
May 18, 2003
7,853
1
Santa Monica, CA
Visit site
Til the End of Time said:
I don't think it's all that unreasonable to say Fleury would not be taken in the first round, knowing what we now know. I'd say he would be taken in the middle of the second round.

Howard would almost certainly be the first goalie taken.

I would like to apologize for this bad attempt at humor, as I was bored at the time of this post. Pity me.

Anyway, I see no reason why Fleury would not be taken in the top four. Where exactly depends on the teams' needs.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
orcatown said:
If the draft was redone this is the order I see. Based on who I would most want.

1. Horton
2. Zherdev
3. Bergeron
4. Phnaeuf
5. Staal
6. Carter
7. Suter
8. Parise
9. Michalek
11. Kesler
12. Burns
13. Vanek
14. Richards
15. Getzlaf
16. Coburn
17. Kostitsyn
18. Fehr
19. Belle
20. Seabrooke
21. Brown
22. Perry
23. O'Sullivan
24. Weber
25. Vrana
26. Fritsche
27. Stone
28. Stuart
29. Bernier
30. Stewart

I don't see Polliot, Tambellini, Nilsson,Eaves, Boyle in the top round. Admit Eaves and Boyle are doing ok at Boston College but think others have moved ahead of them) Jessiman is MIA so hard to rate his progress

I think this open to a lot of debate.

Intelligence would dictate 3-5 on Fehr.
 

sabresfan65

Vegas HAS Hockey!!
Sponsor
May 23, 2004
1,893
348
Vegas
orcatown said:
I agree that Vanek has better upside potential than Kesler. Vanek could be great. But he is very poor without the puck and does not use his teammates well. If you compare stats right now in the AHL they are as follows

Kesler 14 16 30
Vanek 15 9 24

Biggest stat maybe that Kesler is a +16 and Vanek, on maybe the best team, in the AHL is -1. Also Kesler has to go against the other teams top line every night and Vanek has scored 10 goals on the power play.

Vanek probably has as much offensive potential as any in the draft. But there are some pretty glaring holes in his game.

Couple of things. First going against the other teams top line in the ahl is good for your offense because most time those players don't play defense as well. An offensive player can learn to back check more than a defensive forward can learn to score.
gp g a p +/- pim pp sh gw gt fg ot vg shots pct
96/97 53 23 25 48 8 81 3 1 3 0 4 0 1 180 12.8
97/98 45 30 26 56 20 74 14 2 2 0 8 0 4 160 18.8

These are the stats for another former Rochester Amerk: Vaclav Varada.

Now his NHL stats:

Season Team GP G A P +/- PIM PP SH GW GT Shots Pct
1995-1996 Sabres 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
1996-1997 Sabres 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0
1997-1998 Sabres 27 5 6 11 0 15 0 0 1 1 27 18.5
1998-1999 Sabres 72 7 24 31 11 61 1 0 1 0 123 5.7
1999-2000 Sabres 76 10 27 37 12 62 0 0 0 0 140 7.1
2000-2001 Sabres 75 10 21 31 -2 81 2 0 2 0 112 8.9
2001-2002 Sabres 76 7 16 23 -7 82 1 0 1 0 138 5.1
2002-2003 Sabres 44 7 4 11 -2 23 1 0 0 0 64 10.9
2002-2003 Senators 11 2 6 8 3 8 1 0 0 0 17 11.8
2003-2004 Senators 30 5 5 10 2 26 0 0 1 0 47 10.6

NHL Totals 417 53 109 162 17 360 6 0 6 1 672 7.9


The AHL isn't a snipers game. It is a muckers and grinders game. You can be very successful in the AHL as a mucker and a grinder. Vaclav Varada didn't develop hands of stone in the NHL, it's just harder for muckers and grinders to score in the NHL.

I'm not saying that Vanek doesn't have to work on parts of his game, I'm sure he does but to take half a years statistics try to reevaluate a 2 year old draft before 95% of them have had an opportunity to play in the NHL is a bit much. I suppose with no NHL to watch we all have time on our hands but I suspect many of you would still be making these lists during intermissions instead of watching the Zamboni go round and round.
 

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
sabresfan65 said:
Couple of things. First going against the other teams top line in the ahl is good for your offense because most time those players don't play defense as well. An offensive player can learn to back check more than a defensive forward can learn to score.
gp g a p +/- pim pp sh gw gt fg ot vg shots pct
96/97 53 23 25 48 8 81 3 1 3 0 4 0 1 180 12.8
97/98 45 30 26 56 20 74 14 2 2 0 8 0 4 160 18.8

These are the stats for another former Rochester Amerk: Vaclav Varada.

Now his NHL stats:

Season Team GP G A P +/- PIM PP SH GW GT Shots Pct
1995-1996 Sabres 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
1996-1997 Sabres 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0
1997-1998 Sabres 27 5 6 11 0 15 0 0 1 1 27 18.5
1998-1999 Sabres 72 7 24 31 11 61 1 0 1 0 123 5.7
1999-2000 Sabres 76 10 27 37 12 62 0 0 0 0 140 7.1
2000-2001 Sabres 75 10 21 31 -2 81 2 0 2 0 112 8.9
2001-2002 Sabres 76 7 16 23 -7 82 1 0 1 0 138 5.1
2002-2003 Sabres 44 7 4 11 -2 23 1 0 0 0 64 10.9
2002-2003 Senators 11 2 6 8 3 8 1 0 0 0 17 11.8
2003-2004 Senators 30 5 5 10 2 26 0 0 1 0 47 10.6

NHL Totals 417 53 109 162 17 360 6 0 6 1 672 7.9


The AHL isn't a snipers game. It is a muckers and grinders game. You can be very successful in the AHL as a mucker and a grinder. Vaclav Varada didn't develop hands of stone in the NHL, it's just harder for muckers and grinders to score in the NHL.

I'm not saying that Vanek doesn't have to work on parts of his game, I'm sure he does but to take half a years statistics try to reevaluate a 2 year old draft before 95% of them have had an opportunity to play in the NHL is a bit much. I suppose with no NHL to watch we all have time on our hands but I suspect many of you would still be making these lists during intermissions instead of watching the Zamboni go round and round.

To add to your point, this is Vanek's first season in the AHL. Kesler has played in the AHL last year, also getting some time with the big club.
 

orcatown

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
10,251
7,396
Visit site
Good points sabrefan - I frankly don't see Kesler as a big scorer at the NHL level. However, he brings good size, excellent skating and determination. Bob Gainey wasn't a big scorer but he was extremely valuble. These are the types of players you need in the playoffs.

What has impressed me most about Kesler was last year when the US won the Junior World Championship. Kesler was out on every second shift from the middle of the second period onwards. He took all the key face-offs and consistently forced the play out of his zone. He also scored the tieing goal.

AHL may be more of muckers game but right now so are the playoffs in the NHL. I've watched hugely skilled Naslund dominate the regular season and then struggle in the playoffs.

If I'm buiding a playoff contender I build it around players like Kesler before I build it around Vanek or, for that matter, Naslund. Vanek is a great asset but imo not a heart and soul player

As far as Fehr goes I really like him. There is a Cam Neely aspect to his game. Problem is that he has never earned himself, or be given, the chance to excel at a higher level. Dominating Junior players, as he does, is not enough to say he will exceed with equally big and strong players. That I rank him at 16th is an indication of how deep the draft is.

btw - if he was in the top 5 (right now)he surely would have made the Junior National team.
 

borro

Registered User
Oct 8, 2002
3,141
0
Texas
Visit site
X-SHARKIE said:
1. Staal
2. Zherdev
3. Fleury
4. Phaneuf
5. Parise
6. Horton
7. Vanek
8. Carter
9. Suter
10. Bergeron
11. Getzlaf
12. Brown
13. Michalek (only because of injurey)
14. Kostitsyn
15. Coburn
16. Bernier
17. Kesler
18. Burns
19. Stewart
20. Richards
21. Seabrook
22. Ericksson
23. Fritsche
24. O'Sullivan
25. Stuart
26. Perry
27. Stone
28. Nilsson
29. Pouliot
30. Klein

I really hope no Eric Fehr is an oversight? O'Sullivan and Stone in front of him?

No way.

1. Phaneuf
2. Zherdev
3. Fehr
4. Staal
5. Suter
6. Coburn
7. Vanek
8. Stuart
9. A. Stewart
10. Getzlaf
11. Fleury
12. Richards
13. Seabrooke
14. Brown
15. Horton
16. Fritsche
17. Kostitsyn
18. Michalek
19. Bergeron
20. Perry
21. Carter
22. Pouliot
23. Kesler
24. Klein
25. Nilsson
26. Parise
27. Burns
28. Stone
29. Bernier
30. O'Sullivan
 

Gags1288

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,359
0
Visit site
borro said:
I really hope no Eric Fehr is an oversight? O'Sullivan and Stone in front of him?

No way.

1. Phaneuf
2. Zherdev
3. Fehr
4. Staal
5. Suter
6. Coburn
7. Vanek
8. Stuart
9. A. Stewart
10. Getzlaf
11. Fleury
12. Richards
13. Seabrooke
14. Brown
15. Horton
16. Fritsche
17. Kostitsyn
18. Michalek
19. Bergeron
20. Perry
21. Carter
22. Pouliot
23. Kesler
24. Klein
25. Nilsson
26. Parise
27. Burns
28. Stone
29. Bernier
30. O'Sullivan
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Jeff Carter at 21, Zack Parise at 26, Eric Fehr at 3, i'm guessing that this is some attempt at a joke, Fehr couldn't carry the jock of many of the players you have him listed ahead of.
 

sabresfan65

Vegas HAS Hockey!!
Sponsor
May 23, 2004
1,893
348
Vegas
orcatown said:
Good points sabrefan - I frankly don't see Kesler as a big scorer at the NHL level. However, he brings good size, excellent skating and determination. Bob Gainey wasn't a big scorer but he was extremely valuble. These are the types of players you need in the playoffs.

What has impressed me most about Kesler was last year when the US won the Junior World Championship. Kesler was out on every second shift from the middle of the second period onwards. He took all the key face-offs and consistently forced the play out of his zone. He also scored the tieing goal.

AHL may be more of muckers game but right now so are the playoffs in the NHL. I've watched hugely skilled Naslund dominate the regular season and then struggle in the playoffs.

If I'm buiding a playoff contender I build it around players like Kesler before I build it around Vanek or, for that matter, Naslund. Vanek is a great asset but imo not a heart and soul player

As far as Fehr goes I really like him. There is a Cam Neely aspect to his game. Problem is that he has never earned himself, or be given, the chance to excel at a higher level. Dominating Junior players, as he does, is not enough to say he will exceed with equally big and strong players. That I rank him at 16th is an indication of how deep the draft is.

btw - if he was in the top 5 (right now)he surely would have made the Junior National team.


But a team can't have a line up like this and expect to win consistantly:

Varada-Varada-Varada
Varada-Varada-Varada
Varada-Varada-Varada
Varada-Varada-Varada

I loved the way VV played while in Buffalo and was sad to see him go and I agree that the playoffs are more of a muckers game. Just look at VV's playoff scoring. But the Vaneks and the Naslunds get you to the playoffs.
 

monster_bertuzzi

registered user
May 26, 2003
32,733
3
Vancouver
Visit site
borro said:
I really hope no Eric Fehr is an oversight? O'Sullivan and Stone in front of him?

No way.

1. Phaneuf
2. Zherdev
3. Fehr
4. Staal
5. Suter
6. Coburn
7. Vanek
8. Stuart
9. A. Stewart
10. Getzlaf
11. Fleury
12. Richards
13. Seabrooke
14. Brown
15. Horton
16. Fritsche
17. Kostitsyn
18. Michalek
19. Bergeron
20. Perry
21. Carter
22. Pouliot
23. Kesler
24. Klein
25. Nilsson
26. Parise
27. Burns
28. Stone
29. Bernier
30. O'Sullivan

If this isn't a joke...you need help. If this is a joke, nicely done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->