Prospect Info: Minnesota Wild Prospect Rankings: #4

[Digitalbooya]

Jesper Wallstedt wins the #3 spot on the list!

Who, in your opinion, is the Minnesota Wild's #4 prospect? Rank them based on whatever you see fit.

1. Marco Rossi (59.2%)
2. Matt Boldy (89.3%)
3. Jesper Wallstedt (53.8%)
4.

Click to read more...

 

[TaLoN]

Lambos again, I could never vote a goaltender so high unless our cupboards were utterly bare.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Lambos again, I could never vote a goaltender so high unless our cupboards were utterly bare.

The scouting staff seems to think otherwise since they drafted said goaltender over said defenseman.

 

[TaLoN]

The scouting staff seems to think otherwise since they drafted said goaltender over said defenseman.

They can think otherwise all they want, I disagree is all.

I would NEVER draft a goaltender in the first round.

 

[Circulartheory]

They can think otherwise all they want, I disagree is all.

I would NEVER draft a goaltender in the first round.

Why do you hate us

 

[BagHead]

At this point I've only watched guys play in highlights, so I'm largely going off of what scouts say. I'm picking Lambos, due to upside. If I were going off of how close they are to making the big show, it'd be Addison, so he's probably next for me.

They can think otherwise all they want, I disagree is all.

I would NEVER draft a goaltender in the first round.

I also used to speak in absolutes about the goalie in the 1st round issue, but the truth is that if I think there's a guy that's a franchise goalie and no other franchise players are available to draft, I take the goalie. I'm not sure I feel quite that strongly about Wallstedt's upside, but I do think he's one of our top prospects at the moment, in the tier immediately beneath Boldy and Rossi.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

This is probably the hardest year to actually make these rankings since our expansion, Boldy and Addison are the only highly rated guys that I have actually seen play in the last year and a half (not counting Rossi’s COVID play.) I went with Addison for this just based on readiness and I do like quite a bit about his game, but Lambos could very easily be the right choice based on the higher potential. There’s also ROR who seems the safest pick of the bunch to have a solid NHL career IMO.

 

[MuckOG]

Lambos, then O'Rourke

I would NEVER draft a goaltender in the first round.

I generally agree with this approach, but considering Brackett had two first round picks to play with I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

 

[HotDish]

Why do you hate us

you're always the weirdest people in the lockerrom.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

you're always the weirdest people in the lockerrom.

almost always.

 

[Minnewildsota]

you're always the weirdest people in the lockerrom.

We're better than normal. We're abnormal

 

[Minnesnota]

Lambos, then O'Rourke



I generally agree with this approach, but considering Brackett had two first round picks to play with I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

Yep this is where I'm at. Lambos should've been 3rd but whatever. Lambos and O'Rourke should be the next two off the board.

If I'm ranking these out:

Boldy
Rossi
Lambos
Wallstedt
O'Rourke
Beckman
Addison
Khusnutdinov
Khovanov
Nesterenko
Hunt
Peart
Novak
Lizotte
Dewar

 

[Dickie Dunn]

For a "weak" draft it seems like they did real well to add their 3rd and 4th 'best' prospects within a good prospect pool.

 

[TaLoN]

Why do you hate us

I don't hate goalies, they're just a lesser value position in today's NHL than they used to be, due to the lesser drop in performance from the top goalies to the next tier below. In a cap world, you're far better off with that cheaper version.

At this point I've only watched guys play in highlights, so I'm largely going off of what scouts say. I'm picking Lambos, due to upside. If I were going off of how close they are to making the big show, it'd be Addison, so he's probably next for me.



I also used to speak in absolutes about the goalie in the 1st round issue, but the truth is that if I think there's a guy that's a franchise goalie and no other franchise players are available to draft, I take the goalie. I'm not sure I feel quite that strongly about Wallstedt's upside, but I do think he's one of our top prospects at the moment, in the tier immediately beneath Boldy and Rossi.

I think the difference in today's NHL between a franchise caliber goalie and one of the next tier isn't great enough to be concerned with, yet the pay most definitely is concerning.

Lambos, then O'Rourke



I generally agree with this approach, but considering Brackett had two first round picks to play with I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

I would've rather had doubled up on the skaters, who IMO, carry more value.

 

[57special]

For a "weak" draft it seems like they did real well to add their 3rd and 4th 'best' prospects within a good prospect pool.

recency bias, also. It's easier to project great things for players that haven't done anything yet. We were all pretty pumped about Sokolov, Beckman, and Khovanov at one point because of their stellar production in the CHL.

 

[BagHead]

We're better than normal. We're abnormal

I prefer extranormal.

I forgot how many of the posters on this board used to be goalies!

 

[57special]

I prefer extranormal.

I forgot how many of the posters on this board used to be goalies!

I always treated my goalies with great care, as if they were wayward, somewhat slow, children.

If you get a great one, it's worth it.

 

[BagHead]

I always treated my goalies with great care, as if they were wayward, somewhat slow, children.

If you get a great one, it's worth it.

Well, I was a somewhat slow child, so I appreciate your sensitivity.

I've got to agree, though. If Wallstedt ends up costing a lot of cap, that means he's become pretty great. For all we know he'll just be a run-of-the-mill starter, and that's fine at 20th overall (but really 19th). At least that's a useful everyday player that makes a big impact over the course of a season. And if he turns out to be great... well, that's a fairly good problem to have.

 

[57special]

Well, I was a somewhat slow child, so I appreciate your sensitivity.

I've got to agree, though. If Wallstedt ends up costing a lot of cap, that means he's become pretty great. For all we know he'll just be a run-of-the-mill starter, and that's fine at 20th overall (but really 19th). At least that's a useful everyday player that makes a big impact over the course of a season. And if he turns out to be great... well, that's a fairly good problem to have.

Great Goalies have the ability to save games. It's a huge lift for a team when a goalie makes an impossible save...makes them feel like anything is possible. Almost all Cup winners have excellent goaltending.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

recency bias, also. It's easier to project great things for players that haven't done anything yet. We were all pretty pumped about Sokolov, Beckman, and Khovanov at one point because of their stellar production in the CHL.

Good point

 

[Dickie Dunn]

For the record, the lax goalies on my kids teams are a bit off too.....good kids and often funny.....but clearly a bubble off of level.

 

[Poacher]

Haven't heard of this Just Observing guy.. late round pick?

 

[P10p]

Yep this is where I'm at. Lambos should've been 3rd but whatever. Lambos and O'Rourke should be the next two off the board.

If I'm ranking these out:

Boldy
Rossi
Lambos
Wallstedt
O'Rourke
Beckman
Addison
Khusnutdinov
Khovanov
Nesterenko
Hunt
Peart
Novak
Lizotte
Dewar

Why include 26yo Lizotte in a list with our prospects?

 

[Minnesnota]

Why include 26yo Lizotte in a list with our prospects?

To put an emphasis on how little I value Dewar.

 

[Circulartheory]

I don't hate goalies, they're just a lesser value position in today's NHL than they used to be, due to the lesser drop in performance from the top goalies to the next tier below. In a cap world, you're far better off with that cheaper version.

You are throwing too many words at me so I'm going to take that as disrespect.