2020 NHL Draft Thread: Who knows how many more days until this year's hockey tryouts? - Part III

[thestonedkoala]

I’m not talking defense. There are multiple offensive play styles and I think they are both different in that category.

What makes Lundell style superior over Granlund?

 

[BagHead]

What makes Lundell style superior over Granlund?

I'm not sure it's about "superior" as much as it is about "not comparable". They're different players who play different styles in pretty much every aspect of the game. Saying one didn't work out as hoped for in the NHL so the other one won't either not logical when comparing them. The only thing they have in common is their Finnish Pro team has the same name (but not the same roster, so even that isn't comparable).

Besides that, Granlund became a leading scorer in a pretty decent NHL team. I think that's pretty close to reaching his offensive potential, his prime just wasn't as long as many hoped for. But again, that doesn't matter because he and Lundell are different players.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

What makes Lundell style superior over Granlund?

as stated above, its not about superior. just different.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

 

[thestonedkoala]

Besides that, Granlund became a leading scorer in a pretty decent NHL team. I think that's pretty close to reaching his offensive potential, his prime just wasn't as long as many hoped for. But again, that doesn't matter because he and Lundell are different players.

Except they had to kick him out to wing, because he couldn't cut it at center. Okay, so what about Lundell's offense makes it easier to translate than Granlund's?

 

[Bazeek]

Except they had to kick him out to wing, because he couldn't cut it at center. Okay, so what about Lundell's offense makes it easier to translate than Granlund's?

The point is that Granlund had better offensive tools, but lacked the physical assets to cut it at center. Lundell isn't as flashy, but is almost a sure bet to play center in the NHL. They're just not that similar.

 

[thestonedkoala]

The point is that Granlund had better offensive tools, but lacked the physical assets to cut it at center. Lundell isn't as flashy, but is almost a sure bet to play center in the NHL. They're just not that similar.

But that isn't the point of this discussion, we're talking about offense here. And if a guy like Granlund, who played center, had difficulty translating his offense to the NHL, what makes Lundell more of a sure bet that his offense is going to translate? We're not talking about position here, because I agree that Lundell with his size can be an NHL center, but if we're looking for offense, are we going to kick him out to wing to generate that offense (he's listed as a versatile forward) or are we going to have another Granlund on our hands? The issue that scouts and fans see is what type of center? Is he going to be a top 6 center like a poor man version of Barkov or is he going to be a Armia type?

 

[AKL]

Are we arguing that Lundell may or may not be able to become a top 6 center dependent upon if he can score enough points?

Are we arguing that draft prospects aren't sure things?

 

[Bazeek]

But that isn't the point of this discussion, we're talking about offense here. And if a guy like Granlund, who played center, had difficulty translating his offense to the NHL, what makes Lundell more of a sure bet? We're not talking about position here, because I agree that Lundell with his size can be an NHL center. The issue that scouts and fans see is what type of center? Is he going to be a top 6 center like a poor man version of Barkov or is he going to be a Armia type?

I guess I'm lost. I don't think anyone thinks Granlund's offense didn't translate, just his position. He was a great success overall (until Nashville), but moving to wing was a problem for a team that was counting on him at center. That move didn't have to do with his skill, it had to do with his size and speed.

Lundell seems to be the opposite: his position is clear, but his offensive upside isn't. I don't see how Granlund bears on that question.

 

[thestonedkoala]

I guess I'm lost. I don't think anyone thinks Granlund's offense didn't translate, just his position. He was a great success overall (until Nashville), but moving to wing was a problem for a team that was counting on him at center.

Lundell seems to be the opposite: his position is clear, but his offensive upside isn't. I don't see how Granlund bears on that question.

Sorry I edited it. If you remember back when Granlund was still a prospect, he was seen as probably the best offensive player that the Wild had drafted since Bouchard/Gaborik. Granlund's offense really didn't translate well, because he had only two seasons of 20+ goals and was a middling winger at best. I think he was good, but he wasn't the success that Fletcher saw when they drafted him. Granlund was as close to a blue chip/franchise player you could get at the time for the Wild, and many had him valued like Kaprizov.

As you mentioned, moving Granlund to wing was a problem for a team that was counting on him at center. Well, the Wild need a top 6 center and the question is, is Lundell it? Because if his offense doesn't translate over then they are stuck in the same boat; a bunch of middling forwards that don't generate much in terms of goals.

Again this debate began when someone challenged the common notion and concern of Lundell's offensive production and the translation to North America. You can have a skilled and offensive player like Granlund, who was a wunderkind in his own league (which Lundell plays in), but failed to replicate that success in another league (and 26 goals and 69 points is great, but he couldn't sustain that production). I was merely bringing up the fact that offense in one league doesn't always translate to offense in another league. A better example maybe Joel Armia, but he didn't come through the Wild system (and I know a lot of fans who wanted him).

 

[Bazeek]

Sorry I edited it. If you remember back when Granlund was still a prospect, he was seen as probably the best offensive player that the Wild had drafted since Bouchard/Gaborik. Granlund's offense really didn't translate well, because he had only two seasons of 20+ goals and was a middling winger at best. I think he was good, but he wasn't the success that Fletcher saw when they drafted him. Granlund was as close to a blue chip/franchise player you could get at the time for the Wild, and many had him valued like Kaprizov.

As you mentioned, moving Granlund to wing was a problem for a team that was counting on him at center. Well, the Wild need a top 6 center and the question is, is Lundell it? Because if his offense doesn't translate over then they are stuck in the same boat; a bunch of middling forwards that don't generate much in terms of goals.

Again this debate began when someone challenged the common notion and concern of Lundell's offensive production and the translation to North America. You can have a skilled and offensive player like Granlund, who was a wunderkind in his own league (which Lundell plays in), but failed to replicate that success in another league (and 26 goals and 69 points is great, but he couldn't sustain that production). I was merely bringing up the fact that offense in one league doesn't always translate to offense in another league. A better example maybe Joel Armia, but he didn't come through the Wild system (and I know a lot of fans who wanted him).

Well I definitely don't disagree that Lundell is a risk. Ending up with a second Eriksson Ek wouldn't be a catastrophe, but it'd seem like a missed opportunity in this draft.

 

[2Pair]

But that isn't the point of this discussion, we're talking about offense here. And if a guy like Granlund, who played center, had difficulty translating his offense to the NHL, what makes Lundell more of a sure bet that his offense is going to translate? We're not talking about position here, because I agree that Lundell with his size can be an NHL center, but if we're looking for offense, are we going to kick him out to wing to generate that offense (he's listed as a versatile forward) or are we going to have another Granlund on our hands? The issue that scouts and fans see is what type of center? Is he going to be a top 6 center like a poor man version of Barkov or is he going to be a Armia type?

You think guys get moved to wing because of offense?

 

[57special]

As opposed to who, Bourque, Lapierre, Zary? I think that those are more risky than Lundell. And surely we have to take a C?

 

[AKL]

As opposed to who, Bourque, Lapierre, Zary? I think that those are more risky than Lundell. And surely we have to take a C?

Nope

 

[AJ Thelen]

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

Lundell is about to do disgusting things to Liiga this year

 

[57special]

Talking about risky, Rossi and Perfetti might not be effective at the NHL level because of their lack of speed and strength, and C might be a position they can't fill in the NHL. For a team like us, that's important. It could well be that Lundell is the best C in the draft, years from now, though Byfield has so many tools, and is so young.

I wish he would stop scoring now, though, till after the draft, anyway.

 

[Bazeek]

Lundell is about to do disgusting things to Liiga this year

He has me really torn. I am the furthest thing in the world from an amateur scout, but the little I've seen of him looks a lot like a player that'll have major success in the NHL. No fancy stuffy, but this league will grind that off most players anyway. And maybe it's just the larger ice, but he hasn't looked slow to me at all.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

He has me really torn. I am the furthest thing in the world from an amateur scout, but the little I've seen of him looks a lot like a player that'll have major success in the NHL. No fancy stuffy, but this league will grind that off most players anyway. And maybe it's just the larger ice, but he hasn't looked slow to me at all.

His acceleration is slower but by no means does he look like a sloth. I am all aboard Lundell over Rossi.

 

[Bazeek]

His acceleration is slower but by no means does he look like a sloth. I am all aboard Lundell over Rossi.

I'm leaning that way as well, but the prospect of getting 10+ for Dumba and coming away with Lundell and one of the forwards that's likely to slip is getting pretty appealing.

 

[AJ Thelen]

His acceleration is slower but by no means does he look like a sloth. I am all aboard Lundell over Rossi.

Everyone is welcome on the Lundell Express Railways!

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

After the top 3: Perfetti, Drysdale, Raymond, Holtz, Rossi, Lundell. That's 9. We pick 9. Any of those names, and I'm good.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

...

 

[DeagleJenkins]

...

Quinn at 5 would be beautiful as Askarov has already been linked to other teams. If that is the case trade dumba for 10 and we get two quality prospects in the top 10

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

He has me really torn. I am the furthest thing in the world from an amateur scout, but the little I've seen of him looks a lot like a player that'll have major success in the NHL. No fancy stuffy, but this league will grind that off most players anyway. And maybe it's just the larger ice, but he hasn't looked slow to me at all.

He will be a very good player because he’s very smart and makes a lot of plays. I don’t think he’s a 1st line or PP1 guy by any means, but I could easily see him being a Danault with a better shot and sooner rather than later. He’s very physically mature already. I still wouldn’t think twice if it’s between him and Rossi. Rossi will fall because he’s small and people are going to look back and say “how did that guy fall?” Rossi was consistently the best player I saw this year after Lafreniere. If he’s 5’11 he’s a no-brainer #2 in this draft. He’s so smart. So skilled. Such a hard worker. Incredible playmaker. Great skater.