Bank Shot
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2006
- 11,377
- 6,944
This is a nonsensical argument. GM's are stupid, that's been proven again and again.
Wallstedt has been hyped for 3-4 years now and despite all the early hype he has maintained his status as a top prospect throughout and performed at a really high level year after year. The guy was a starter in SHL (one of the best leagues in the world) as an 18 year old and he was good too. He was absolutely deserving of his high ranking.
Him falling doesn't mean he isn't as good as people believe. There are always good players that fall in the 1st round for no real reason. For all we know Wallstedt could've been #2 on many teams' list but they were able to get their #1 guy so he fell. That plus a lot of GM's are still uncomfortable taking a goalie in the 1st round.
Still, the team who eventually ended up taking him did trade up for him, meaning they thought he was someone they just had to get their hands on at that spot. Not dissimilar from how the Isles traded up to #16 in 2015 and nabbed Barzal.
For me, Wallstedt and Bourgault aren't even in the same tier of prospect. Wallstedt is a clear notch above. Doesn't mean Bourgault is a bad prospect, just means Oilers lost out on a better prospect, just like we did in 2019 when taking Broberg over Zegras. This is exactly the same as that, so it's surprising to me that you're defending this.
I thought the death by a thousand cuts thing would die out with the departure of Chiarelli but Holland is doing the same thing here. Very disappointing.
Meh, you can trade for a good starting goaltender nearly every season with a first round pick.
Why select a goaltender in the latter half of the first round that is 50-50 at best to play 100 games in the NHL when you can trade that same first for a proven starting goalie?
Unless you think Wallstedt was a franchise level goaltender? if so why did he fall to 20th overall?