Duff88's 2004 mock draft (2 rounds)

Status
Not open for further replies.

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
La-La-Laprise said:
Good list DSuff88.

I find it strange how a lot of people come on here and say "Team X wont take Player Y because they are loaded at that position"

In the first round a lot of teams pick Best Player. When you get into 2nd round and on teams start to look at position.

agreed, see my mock...but I still say Sharks would not take Montoya. But great mock overall....I love mock drafts...to bad there is no mel keiper of the NHL world.
 

willie

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
3,976
0
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
LA - Agree, no one there really.

Ryan Munce (Sarnia) is actually a very good goaltending prospect who doesn't get much respect around here. (he is a potential starter for Canada at the next WJC)

That said, I could certainly see LA giving Schwarz or Montoya a long hard look.
 

Duff88

Registered User
May 7, 2002
5,101
114
X-SHARKIE said:
agreed, see my mock...but I still say Sharks would not take Montoya. But great mock overall....I love mock drafts...to bad there is no mel keiper of the NHL world.

Sorry for my ignorance but who's Mel Keiper?
 
Jul 29, 2003
31,639
5,336
Saskatoon
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
Good list DSuff88.

I find it strange how a lot of people come on here and say "Team X wont take Player Y because they are loaded at that position"

In the first round a lot of teams pick Best Player. When you get into 2nd round and on teams start to look at position.

Think about it. Lets say team X has prospects like Lehtonen and Fleury in net. Maybe throw in a Harding as well. Do you think they're going to take Montoya, just because he's the best player available? To a lesser extent, teams that have good depth at one position won't draft a player who plays that position, just because they're the best available. They'll trade down a couple spots, or draft that player anyway. If they want a player more than one that might be better, teams should go for that player. Minny did with Burns, and that was one of the smartest moves of the draft.
 

Duff88

Registered User
May 7, 2002
5,101
114
rahan said:
Strongly disagree :D

I disagree. While he mature he'll learn to stop giving these stupid goals every game. IMO, that's his only problem, if he stop giving that stupid goal, he'll be a good goalie.
 

Rahan

Registered User
May 27, 2003
1,760
0
Chicoutimi
Visit site
Duff88 said:
I disagree. While he mature he'll learn to stop giving these stupid goals every game. IMO, that's his only problem, if he stop giving that stupid goal, he'll be a good goalie.

More like two stupid goals a game, plus every time he plays the puck you're afraid he's gonna put it in his own net. But he can learn that, that's true.
 

Duff88

Registered User
May 7, 2002
5,101
114
Spezza said:
Nice work :)

Could you explain why you see Ottawa taking Berti ahead of say Bickell or Kaspar.

Cheers

Again, this was close between Berti and Bickell. I gave the edge to Berti because he has an higher potential, he is fast, big and skilled. I really like Bickell though and I even prefer him to Berti but I thought that Adam was the perfect fit for the Senators (Even though Bickell actually play in Ottawa).

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ottawa one of them.
 

Scooter2

Registered User
Feb 2, 2004
50
0
???

Bolland was reated 6 by CSB in North america and the Red Line rated Bolland ahead of both Wolski and Shremp yet you have him rated being drafted later than Wolski and Shremp, does not make sence when you look at the stats.

Bolland has played most of the season on the 3rd line with limited power play ice time and Wolski has played first line, and power and penalty kill.

Only difference is Wolski is 6' 2" and Shremp and Bolland are 6', Bolland & Shremp are both more talented that wolski especially when you look at ice time and production.!!!
 

Bad News Benning

Fallin for Dahlin?
Jan 11, 2003
20,249
3
Victoria
Visit site
Duff88 said:
My reasonning behind that pick is that the Canucks don't have a strong prospect core, but that their biggest weakness was their lack of good D prospects. Kirill Koltsov being the only one who have a good chance of making it to the big leagues, I thought that Hedman was the perfect pick for Vancouver. I have to admit though that it was close between him and McGrath but he got the edge because of the way he's developping so fast.

They have plenty of D prospects that have a a chance of making it to the big leagues besides Koltsov:

Tomas Mojzis
Markus Kankaanpera
Brett Skinner
Kevin Bieska
Denis Grot

The Canucks don't need another offensive defenseman, they need Defensive defenseman or talented forwards. What type of player is Oscar Hedman? If he's a defensive defenseman with size it would make sense for the Canucks.
 

MichaelK

Registered User
Mar 13, 2004
1,704
257
15. New York Islanders - Drew Stafford
45. New York Islanders - Petr Pohl


I just cannot see the Islanders bypassing needs on D in the first two rounds. Someone like Jeff Schultz in Round 2 is exactly what they need
 

Duff88

Registered User
May 7, 2002
5,101
114
Koltsov said:
They have plenty of D prospects that have a a chance of making it to the big leagues besides Koltsov:

Tomas Mojzis
Markus Kankaanpera
Brett Skinner
Kevin Bieska
Denis Grot

The Canucks don't need another offensive defenseman, they need Defensive defenseman or talented forwards. What type of player is Oscar Hedman? If he's a defensive defenseman with size it would make sense for the Canucks.

I was talking about a good chance, these all have a chance but they don't have potential to become a good top 4 guy. Hedman does. BTW, he's more of a defensive defenceman but he plays a good all-around game and he's something like 6'0/205.
 

hunter orange

Registered User
Apr 23, 2003
779
0
Visit site
If the Oil pick 13th overall, I think they will look more at a guy like Picard. Chipchura is a safe pick (a pick that would normally attract the Oil), but Edmonton really needs to add SCORING depth. They need a guy like Picard who can light a game up...even if he doesn't show up every night. I also would not be surprised to see the Oil take a goalie with one of their first rounders.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
ducksflytogether said:
Think about it. Lets say team X has prospects like Lehtonen and Fleury in net. Maybe throw in a Harding as well. Do you think they're going to take Montoya, just because he's the best player available? To a lesser extent, teams that have good depth at one position won't draft a player who plays that position, just because they're the best available. They'll trade down a couple spots, or draft that player anyway. If they want a player more than one that might be better, teams should go for that player. Minny did with Burns, and that was one of the smartest moves of the draft.

That is an extreme. But the point is taken.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
La-La-Laprise said:
CHI - Crawford, Munro, Leighton, Underhill, Andersson. I know they dont have a franchise guy bot 3 of those guys will be NHLers.

PHX - Lenevue, severly under rated on HF.

ANA - Giguere is 26, and they have Bryzgalov.

NYR - Blackburn!! He is hurt, he will come back strong.

MIN - Harding and not much else.

EDM - Jeff Drouin-Deslauriers has a bright future.

LA - Agree, no one there really.
Yes, but for these teams, you don't pass up the chance to have a franchise goalie if you're picking in the top 10 without a franchise skater to pick IMO.
 

Gwyddbwyll

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
11,252
469
Do you think Schwarz is on a par with Lehtonen and Fleury then as genuine franchise goalies?

I'm not convinced that he is any better than many of those prospects - Leneveu, Harding, Blackburn are excellent and there is Henrik Lundqvist too on the Rangers.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
Stevex said:
Do you think Schwarz is on a par with Lehtonen and Fleury then as genuine franchise goalies?

I'm not convinced that he is any better than many of those prospects - Leneveu, Harding, Blackburn are excellent and there is Henrik Lundqvist too on the Rangers.
No I' say Schwarz is not on Lehtonen and Fleury's level. But he's still a franchise goalie IMO. I don't think Harding, Lundqvist and Blackburn are. Leneveu could be one though.
 

stardog

Been on HF so long my Myspace link is part of my p
Oct 31, 2003
5,318
309
www.myspace.com
Great job! Thanks for the time and thought put into this. I always enjoy reading mock drafts, even when they wont look anything like the real draft (which isnt a knock against your list, it is just impossible to predict the exact order). It gives at least some insight on who may be around when my team picks.

If the Pens get Meszaros in the second round I'd be thrilled. Another puck rushing offensive minded D-man with good size. That would be sweet!
 

stardog

Been on HF so long my Myspace link is part of my p
Oct 31, 2003
5,318
309
www.myspace.com
ducksflytogether said:
Think about it. Lets say team X has prospects like Lehtonen and Fleury in net. Maybe throw in a Harding as well. Do you think they're going to take Montoya, just because he's the best player available? To a lesser extent, teams that have good depth at one position won't draft a player who plays that position, just because they're the best available. They'll trade down a couple spots, or draft that player anyway. If they want a player more than one that might be better, teams should go for that player. Minny did with Burns, and that was one of the smartest moves of the draft.

I actually agree with the best player available argument. It is an asset, pure and simple. Remember when the Flyers had two STRONG goaltending prospects ( Boucher and Pelletier-both first rounders) and then took Ouelette? That is 3 goalies in the first round in 5 years.
Or how about the Luongo/Dipietro deal? Or the Devils taking Ahonen. All of these team either had top notch goalies already, or top notch goalie prospects in thier system.
You take the very best asset available in the first round. Regardless of need.
It doesn't mean that you will keep them. It just affords the franchise with more options.
I could definatley see the Sharks take Montoya if he is the best player available. I dont feel it is a stretch at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->