Interesting word choice here. The guy has only played 1 game in the nhl and is already 1 knee injury away from retirement. Who in their right mind would "invest" hope in him to have a lengthy and successful career over a prospect like Ritchie.
If injury is such a concern, they why is Gibson #1?
Ritchie has high potential and motor questions. We don't know if Ritchie will turn out like Getzy or not.
Noesen, despite is his injuries, is a player you don't have to worry about motor or consistent desire. He's also a good scorer. It was easy to follow Noesen's junior career as Rakell was centering him.
As for investment, there are nine other teams who passed on Ritchie. There's got to be a reason why he dropped. Ritchie wasn't a riser a la Lindholm. We took a chance on Ritchie and I hope he makes the NHL squad as well as cements his stay at the NHL level. But if he doesn't, we all know one of the determining factors.
All we have on Noesen is injury concern. There's potential there, but it hasn't had time to develop. But we do know his determination is there. He didn't have to come back early from his injuries. In fact, the org told him to slow down.
But I find your response weird. I voted Ritchie and someone said to make a case for someone else besides Ritchie. I did. And the only substantial thing you brought up was the only reason I voted for Ritchie over Noesen: injury concern, and by proxy, not enough information.
That's it. That's it? It's as if you didn't read my whole post or even my last sentence. I'll highlight it again for you just to be kind:
1. "
Being on the ice ruled over potential." (Wow... isn't that what you just said, but in a very condescending fashion as well as neglecting that it was actually said?! Seriously?)
2. "
If Noesen remains healthy all year, then I wouldn't be surprised to see his stock rise and possibly rise higher than Ritchie." // The premise here is "IF Noesen remains HEALTHY ALL YEAR..." How did you completely miss the premise and focused solely on the outcome?!
People have got to read and read with context. Oh... and possibly comprehend the point of the post - which was an exercise to find someone aside from Ritchie that could possibly not be such a big difference between Ritchie and the next guy. BTW, DaDucks, if it wasn't already so totes obvee, I voted Ritchie. Hence, the reasoning "Being on the ice ruled over potential" comment.