Winners and losers of the 1st round?

[emb24*]

It apparently was an issue for some GM's:

Lowe, for one, said he passed on Cherepanov at No. 15 because of the uncertainty over the transfer agreement between the NHL and the Russian federation and made an interesting point: That if a young Russian gets too good too soon, a handful of Superleague teams can actually offer them more money than if they played in the NHL's entry-level system, which is governed by the cap. The fear of "wasting" a pick played on his mind, but he was also prepared to look at Cherpanov at No. 21 if he dropped that far.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...hockeyblog20070623100544/WBStory/WBhockeyblog

this is precisely how habs got screwed out of emelin this year and possibly next -AK offered more than the entry level deal...or very close anyway

 

[Borat Sagdiyev]

He certainly did well. However, i think there might very well be a better defenceman than Petrecki available with the 2nd they gave up in the 2008 draft.

If there is a "better defenceman than Petrecki available" in the 2nd round next year and Doug Wilson wants him, he will trade up to go get him. Obviously lack of picks will not stop him from getting the guys he wants. He just proved that in the first round this year!

 

[JACKETfan]

Winner or not....how the HELL did Cherepanov mangage to fall to us for the 17th pick???? I'll take that risk a million times in a row with the talent he has!

Think of it as "The Zherdev Effect"
GMs were scared he too would be skilled but overrated, doesn't want to come here, selfish style of play. Definitely not "the new NHL".

Columbus and Halifax and Czech style hockey win with Voracek. Might also give fellow Czech Vyborny a reason not to retire at the end of 2007-08.

Columbus' self perception as a hockey town wins, let alone the perception across the hockey world. Though it remains to be seen if the Draft outdrew the pot-smoking Comfest, intnl video-game tournament, or GayPride parade ALSO happening today in C-bus. What a bizarre weekend for our city.

 

[Norbert]

Winners: The Pens had the steal of the night.

San Jose made out very well, I can't imagine they didn't surpass their own expectations...

and surprisingly, I think the Caps had a great pick.

Losers...LA was the one that had me confused...Edmonton didn't make out so hot either...Phoenix obviously made out okay, but I'll bet they were upset they lost Esposito on the last pick before they had a shot.

 

[oil slick]

Winners: Rangers, Jackets, Sharks

Loosers: Edmonton (Love Gagner, but could have done more), LA.

As for all this Esposito talk of being a steal... I know he had a different role this year, but a top offensive player should be absolutely dominating the QMJHL offensively. That, along with the fact his stats crumbled when Radulov left, leaves me to think he won't be nearly as good as people make him out to be. Still - seems like a nice enough guy, so I hope he makes a fool out of me.

 

[FlyersGuy69]

As for the Esposito/Cherepanov debate, people are finally seeing that attitude is HUGE with NHL scouts. These guys are both talented but are pure poison. Get used to this trend because this is the No. 1 thing that sways scouting decisions at the end of the day, I think. Character will tip the scales at crunch time every time. See Couture, MacMillan, Sutter, etc. These are solid players but are highly coveted because of their attitudes. This is a trend I REALLY like. It's no accident that the past two Cup winners are well-known for following this blue print. Just look at the leaders and draft picks in Carolina and Anaheim if you don't believe me.

I agree. thats why I am surprised by all these posters saying that the big winners were the Rangers and Penguins. yeah, they were able to get two highly skilled players but there is a reason they fell that far. as skilled as these two players are, there is also huge risk, so I don't consider them 'winners' in the draft or 1st round.

also, I will say, as a Flyers fan that I am glad that both these teams reached with these two players because one if not both are more then likely to fail, thus waisting a 1st round pick.

 

[Little Nilan]

jas -

The lack of a transfer agreement with Russia and players like Malkin having to flee in the middle of the night in some cloak and daggers game make Cherepanov falling to 17 not especially surprising. Tell me anyone who thought Esposito would fall to anywhere close to 20.

Me.

Cherepanov is a better steal considering his higher skill and the fact the Rangers don't care at all about dishing the big bucks like Pittsburgh. There coudn't have been a better fit for Cherepanov then the Rangers.

 

[MM425]

You've gotta like what the Blues did. 3 great forewards in the first round with loads offensive potential to compliment there solid defensive and goaltending prospect cores. San Jose had a good first round too.

While Ganger was a good pick... if I were an Oilers fan I would have prefered the 1st round to turn out a little differently. I would have liked to have seen Petreki at 15, and Backlund at 21.

You can't really tell who are the winners and loosers until all the prospects are done developing though.

 

[KeithBWhittington]

You've gotta like what the Blues did. 3 great forewards in the first round with loads offensive potential to compliment there solid defensive and goaltending prospect cores. San Jose had a good first round too.

While Ganger was a good pick... if I were an Oilers fan I would have prefered the 1st round to turn out a little differently. I would have liked to have seen Petreki at 15, and Backlund at 21.

You can't really tell who are the winners and loosers until all the prospects are done developing though.

Perhaps this thread should be called... "Who would ISS, McKeens and Redline say were winners and losers?"

 

[Ghost of jas]

I agree. thats why I am surprised by all these posters saying that the big winners were the Rangers and Penguins. yeah, they were able to get two highly skilled players but there is a reason they fell that far. as skilled as these two players are, there is also huge risk, so I don't consider them 'winners' in the draft or 1st round.

What risk? Both teams had talented players fall into their respective laps. Risk is giving up assets and hoping these players work.

In a draft where at best, there were 6, maybe seven top tier prospects, the Rangers had one fall to them at 17. They didn't have to give up Prucha or Montoya. And they got something they don't have in their prospect base - elite, top line talent.

And where's the risk for the Penguins. Esposito comes into a lineup with Crosby, Malkin and Staal. No need to be a savior. And, if the fear is that his play dropped when Radulov left....gee, I guess he gets to ride the coattails of Crosby or Malkin.

also, I will say, as a Flyers fan that I am glad that both these teams reached with these two players because one if not both are more then likely to fail, thus waisting a 1st round pick.

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of a "reach". Neither Cherepanov nor Esposito was a reach with they went.

 

[Dragon]

Not saying you are wrong... but can you explain me why are the habs a losing team ? I heard it was 2 solid picks... aren't they ?

That person is a Leafs fan, that's why!

 

[Dragon]

In what do they compare ?

I've seen many games of the remparts and the habs to tell you that they are VERY different player... I just don't understand how they are similar...

Willingness to compete.

 

[Semantics]

What risk? Both teams had talented players fall into their respective laps. Risk is giving up assets and hoping these players work.

I would assume he's talking about the risk of wasting a #20 overall pick on a player who doesn't pan out. A player like Esposito is seen by many as more likely to be a bust than some of the other players, but with more upside than them. Of course, it's a silly reason to claim a pick was poor, because all teams pick the BPA and rank by *expected* potential. Not too many teams are saying "well this guy's potential is too volatile, we'd better pick somebody with a smaller difference between his min and max" or vice versa, because in the long run you'll draft worse with that philosophy.

Now, continuing on the subject of abused terminology, I also don't understand why every time a player falls a lot in the draft, people on the boards call it a "steal" for the team he ends up with. A "steal" in my mind is when you grab a great player out from under the noses of people who thought they had him; taking someone higher than expected and disappointing teams who expected he would be available at their turn. Taking home somebody's garbage that they left by the curb is not a "steal", it's more like prospecting (excuse the pun) for a diamond in the rough.

If Cherepanov and/or Esposito turn out to be stars in the NHL, then we should say that the Pens/Rangers found a diamond in the sand that everyone else thought was just a piece of glass and passed over. Now if Hickey turns out to be a star in the NHL, then we could say *he* was a steal.

 

[FlyersGuy69]

What risk? Both teams had talented players fall into their respective laps. Risk is giving up assets and hoping these players work.

In a draft where at best, there were 6, maybe seven top tier prospects, the Rangers had one fall to them at 17. They didn't have to give up Prucha or Montoya. And they got something they don't have in their prospect base - elite, top line talent.

And where's the risk for the Penguins. Esposito comes into a lineup with Crosby, Malkin and Staal. No need to be a savior. And, if the fear is that his play dropped when Radulov left....gee, I guess he gets to ride the coattails of Crosby or Malkin.



Maybe you don't understand the meaning of a "reach". Neither Cherepanov nor Esposito was a reach with they went.

um, neither where top 5 talent(nor close) coming into the draft. maybe a year ago, but not before draft day. some were saying that the Habs might take Esposito at 12 but they wasted no time in passing. had Esposito or Cherepanov been considered top 5 or even top 10 prospects on draft day and they fell like they did, then yes, you could consider that a steal or great value but that wasn't the case.

like I said, both teams could have taken a real good, hard working prospect in the first round but passed and took a risk on the hype. the 'risk' is gambling your 1st rounder on two players that have been free falling for a year because of various issues.

btw, is that what your supposed top talent is supposed to do, ride coattails?

If Cherepanov and/or Esposito turn out to be stars in the NHL, then we should say that the Pens/Rangers found a diamond in the sand that everyone else thought was just a piece of glass and passed over. Now if Hickey turns out to be a star in the NHL, then we could say *he* was a steal.

I agree on the first part but I wouldn't say Hickey would be a steal because they reached up for a player they could have gotten later in the round.

 

[Riffo*]

Winner: Boston

Losers: all 29 other teams

 

[Little Psycho]

Hickey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGs-cKbLS4I&eurl=

 

[Little Psycho]

Lombardi said it himself, Hickey was going to Boston's guy at #8. He couldn't have moved down without losing the chance to grab him.

 

[hototogisu]

Winner: Boston

Losers: all 29 other teams

Welcome back, Riffo.

 

[Shabutie]

definitely the rangers are big winners... cherepanov was the best talent value for where he was picked.

Who knows....Cherepanov can turn out to be another Kovalev. He's got talent, but alot of GMs questioned his work ethic, which is why he went so low...

 

[FlyersGuy69]

Lombardi said it himself, Hickey was going to Boston's guy at #8. He couldn't have moved down without losing the chance to grab him.

I didn't hear that. it was a surprising pick but Lombardi has a track record for knowing how to pick talent. it's hard to doubt the guy.

 

[Little Psycho]

Quote:
"I found out for sure that he wasn't getting by eight,'' Lombardi said, referring to the eighth overall pick, which was held by the Boston Bruins. "That's why I knew we couldn't drop down too far.''

http://www.insidesocal.com/kings/2007/06/lombardi_on_day_2.html


So DL knew or had a reason to believe Boston would pick Hickey at the 8 spot. This limited DL's options in trading down. He tried to get it done, even went so far as attempting a 3-way deal, but in the end it wasn't working out so he took the player he wanted at #4 anyway.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

um, neither where top 5 talent(nor close) coming into the draft. maybe a year ago, but not before draft day. some were saying that the Habs might take Esposito at 12 but they wasted no time in passing. had Esposito or Cherepanov been considered top 5 or even top 10 prospects on draft day and they fell like they did, then yes, you could consider that a steal or great value but that wasn't the case.

like I said, both teams could have taken a real good, hard working prospect in the first round but passed and took a risk on the hype. the 'risk' is gambling your 1st rounder on two players that have been free falling for a year because of various issues.

btw, is that what your supposed top talent is supposed to do, ride coattails?



I agree on the first part but I wouldn't say Hickey would be a steal because they reached up for a player they could have gotten later in the round.

I disagree totally with your definitions. Granted, we will not fully know anything about these players evaluation-wise for 3 or 4 years. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, we can at least evaluate who is currently seen as getting good value propect wise for where the player was picked. Most experts when asked pointed to the Cherepanov and Esposito picks as good value as prospects picks for where they were picked. Hence the 'steal' language.

Another facet of being a potential 'steal' is the tremendous skill both these players have. Top five or even number 1 overall skill. Both also are high risk high reward players. Both were amoung the most purely talented and skilled players in the draft. But both had questions that offset that talent. Cherepanov for several reasons. Supposed attitude questions, supposed taking the night off too often. And yes, the fact that he is Russian and you may have trouble getting him here. A handful of Russian teams, as Lowe pointed out in passing on him, can pay more than the rookie max for the kid. As for Esposito, some of the same questions dinged him regarding taking the night off too often, and even more so attitude. It seems that some really held his games in the draft where he had dissinformation sent out so that he could go to the team he wanted to turned many off and they never forgave him and he has not shed the prima dona image. His production also dropped some. Some question his commitment to defense.

So high risk/high reward, but few question the innate talent of either. Another legit defintion of a otential 'steal.'

 

[sambo24]

Something to note:

Whether talking the amount of risk or value in the Charepanov and Esposito picks,

According to tsn's prospect list(and even if you disagree with them its a fairly average ranking, I think we can agree on that)

Cherepanov was ranked 5, and taken 12 spots later at 17.

Esposito was ranked 8 and taken 12 spots later at 20.

They're both high risk/high reward and actually the same risk and reward.

 

[Ghost of jas]

um, neither where top 5 talent(nor close) coming into the draft. maybe a year ago, but not before draft day. some were saying that the Habs might take Esposito at 12 but they wasted no time in passing. had Esposito or Cherepanov been considered top 5 or even top 10 prospects on draft day and they fell like they did, then yes, you could consider that a steal or great value but that wasn't the case.

like I said, both teams could have taken a real good, hard working prospect in the first round but passed and took a risk on the hype. the 'risk' is gambling your 1st rounder on two players that have been free falling for a year because of various issues.

btw, is that what your supposed top talent is supposed to do, ride coattails?



I agree on the first part but I wouldn't say Hickey would be a steal because they reached up for a player they could have gotten later in the round.

Really, Cherepanov wasn't even close to being top 5 talent, even though ISS had him ranked the #1 European skater and 4th overall, THN had him 5th and McKeens had him 4th? I think that would qualify him as one of the top 5 talents on consensus, not to mention that I can a few observers who have said he could be as talented as anyone in this draft, but, in your judgment, he's not even close to being a top 5 talent.

 

[helicecopter]

..but Lombardi has a track record for knowing how to pick talent. it's hard to doubt the guy.

part of the track record is his legendary 12th overal pick in 1995: Teemu Riihijarvi.

"I found out for sure that he wasn't getting by eight,'' Lombardi said, referring to the eighth overall pick, which was held by the Boston Bruins. "That's why I knew we couldn't drop down too far.''
So DL knew or had a reason to believe Boston would pick Hickey at the 8 spot.

i have doubts he knew that before the draft considering his previous chat:
LOMBARDI-> "I drew a line under a certain number that I can’t go below or I’ll lose him..
That means you can only deal with the teams who were above where I wanted to go, which was a little above ten, but it wasn’t there.
..I was concerned that he was not going to fall too far, and my instincts were correct, as a team just came up to me that was picking in the 10-13 spot, and they said he was their guy.”
http://www.kingshockey.com/articles.cfm?id=212
so what he said here is after his pick he was informed by another team between #10-#13 that they were targeting him.
and btw, all of this is coming off his mouth..we have no confirmation from anyone else..
(anyway, he could have still traded down to #7. he still had washington, edmonton and columbus.. hard to think none was ready to give up anything to move up to #4)

This limited DL's options in trading down. He tried to get it done, even went so far as attempting a 3-way deal, but in the end it wasn't working out so he took the player he wanted at #4 anyway.

actually, from the same previous link:
The Kings did receive a trade offer to move down involving a near-NHL-ready prospect, but it was not enough for Lombardi.
LOMBARDI-> “I had one bona fide proposal,” he said. “It wasn’t a veteran, it was a good prospect who was probably closer to playing [in the NHL] than an 18-year-old, so that was something we considered. He’s a good player, but we thought the upside for Hickey was greater.
With Johnson and Hickey now, these are both kids with top four potential"

Yeah, so greater.. top four potential, wow…
YEAH..who cares about the potential first liners out there, right?
what's wrong is that he acts like if, losing Hickey (by trading down), he could have not picked up anything else good.. to go along with the bona fide proposal comprising the good prospect..
I guess Cherepanov, Backlund, Eller, Couture, Blum etc.. don’t have the potential of an eventual top 4 defenseman, lol.