Discussion in 'Minnesota Wild' started by tyratoku, Jun 30, 2013.
Well the scouts were wrong about Gillies so there is a chance they are wrong about Gabriel
Actually, the scouts thought Gillies would become what he has become. A solid 3rd line winger.
Drafting Gabriel in the third round is definitely a head scratcher, and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have been available a couple rounds later. But at the same time, I'm willing to trust our drafting staff on this. If they felt like he was well worthy of a third round pick, IMO it's better to take him then rather than count on no one else to feel the same (E.g. you don't trade down to draft Brodin, unlike some were saying a little over a year ago). Time will tell, but in the end it's just a third rounder. Even a couple years later it'd be stupid to cherry pick a couple late round steals in retrospect and say "look, these guys turned alright, we should've drafted one of them instead", when the reality is that extremely few players drafted this late pan out. And if against all odds (like it's the case for every somewhat late draft pick) Gabriel does end up being an NHL player for us, no one's gonna complain about drafting him against the consensus.
Honestly, I'm thinking hes just throwing picks away because we've been so close to contract limits. Thats the only way I can even justify this. So stupid.
There might be some truth in that. Swing for the fences mentality?
Pretty much. But then why wouldn't he just do some more throw away picks in the 7th round, a la Nanne. Or maybe with their first draft with an ECHL team they are thinking about more than one organization.
We had an ECHL last year. Who knows.
Ah. I was thinking that came after. Even so.
If the Wild's rationale was to avoid having another contract on their hands, wouldn't it have been the wiser route to select a young kid who will be playing a year of junior plus 4 years of college? That way they wouldn't have to worry about a contract for at least 5 years.
Signing Gabriel wouldn't help them in that department as they only have two years to sign him.
Question: Do you think this is a stupid pick because you know alot about this player or solely because he was left of the CSS rankings?
If Clutterbuck didn't play with Tavaras, he would have also had crap CHL numbers. Nobody is complaining about him being a 3rd round pick.
I like this one.
The people who are simply trusting Fletcher/Flahr aren't posting in this thread ten times a day.
So Tavares turned a guy who would have had 10-15 points into a PPG player?
Well scoring is a little easier in the chl.
Because he's an overager that sounds like Gillies?
So Clutter scores 20-30 points in the NHL without Tavares, yet he wouldn't have had 20-30 in the CHL if he didn't have Tavares?
You realize just how far you're reaching right now?
I'm sorry....but I seem to remember Gillies being selected by the previous regime. What the heck does he have to do with Gabriel? Gillies was drafted in the 1st round, Gabriel in the 3rd. And you said he "sounds" like Gillies. I take that to mean that you've never seen him play and probably have never heard his name before the draft. But yet, you claim to have him all figured out, huh?
A lot. Why not just keep Gillies? Gillies and Gabriel were both described as high character, gritty players that were still developing offense (and in the case of Gillies, he was still 18 when he was picked). Why use a pick on a guy that you just had?
Minnesota has actually had more success with 3rd round picks like Clutter, Hackett. It just seems really bizarre for this regime to take an overage player this early in the draft when there were just as risky but younger players that definitely have room to develop.
The player, not the pick. Gillies was a "character" type player, strong defense, great checker, lots of speed, big body. He had no offense to speak of. The hope was he would become an elite defensive forward for the Wild and maybe develop a bit of offensive game.
Gabriel is described as strong defense, playing a pros game, physical, great size, but struggles with his skating, and has no offensive game. So he's like a worse version of Gillies.
IMO if you don't have an offensive game as a junior player, you won't be effective at the higher levels, even as a role player. If you can't be at least decent enough with the puck vs teenagers, you're going to get killed facing NHL talent.
You are aware that this pick was most likely a pick for the future and not a current need? (ie he probably wasn't selected to replace Gillies)
How much of the future? He's 20 years old. He is more than likely going to be placed in the AHL next year.
Sure...and if he pans out like the Wild think he has a chance to, he might see NHL action a few years down the road. Like I said, this is a pick for the future.
It's more for now. If it was for the future, he would be stashed for 2 years in the WHL, then kept for a few more years in the AHL and maybe crack the NHL in 4-5 years. But since he's 20, he'll be in the AHL. So what? We're going to keep him in the AHL for 4 years? 5 years?
I'm not sure if we're even disagreeing. I don't know how clutter's role was defined in the chl but playing with tavares, under a different coach, he was likely being used a little differently and was better served (and more able, because of the relative lack of defense) playing in different areas of the ice. Clutter found a great niche here rushing people and capitalizing on the loose pucks he took. He had more opportunity with tavares to score in different ways.
Why not? He's a 3rd round pick! Jason Pominville was a 2nd round pick and spent the better part of 4 years in the AHL. Heck the odds of ANY 3rd round pick becoming a regular NHLer are long, no matter WHERE they were ranked.
might as well type it again.
3rd rounders have low probability of playing 100 games in the NHL. whether risebrough was good at picking out 3rd rounders or not is moot. it clearly didn't make him a good GM--neither will whiffing on one make Fletcher a bad GM. They clearly went for "need" and the further you go away from the #1 pick the more subjective "best" becomes--at #81 it's effectively meaningless. if you find a guy picked right after him then chances are good you'll be pointing the finger at every other GM that didn't pick that guy, too. Chances are there will be only one or two "winner" GMs that pick an NHL player in the 3rd round on a given draft year.
No one is saying this is a good pick (i think).
It isn't "bad" either, until it's proven markedly worse than over half those made around it, which will be pretty much impossible to prove as there is almost zero chance that half of the player picked around this kid will be NHL players.
Separate names with a comma.