Can we talk about the Draft some more?

[Gaucho]

Good players sure but we would barely know them if they didnt play here.

lol?

[Gaucho]

As far as I'm concerned, bhaw wins this thread in a landslide.

[Mongoose87]

As far as I'm concerned, bhaw wins this thread in a landslide.

Should we stuff and mount it?

[Gaucho]

As far as I'm concerned, bhaw wins this thread in a landslide.

Should we stuff and mount it?

Yes, in fact we should do that. That would save him and us the trouble to do it all over again next year.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

You didn't know James Neal or Chris Kunitz before they got here? I knew of them and what they could do. I didn't expect Neal to become THAT good with Malkin, but he did. So I don't get the point. And no, we got Whitney for several years then Chris Kunitz. I don't know why you would minimize it to say we spent a 5th overall pick on him, and even if we did... sure. We got a top line winger who helped us win the Cup for a 5th overall. If we forget all the production we got from Whitney, that sure seems like a good deal to me.

While it was nice that we got return for Whitney (and assuming Despres or Morrow turn out to be better than Whitney) would it not be great to keep those guys because we already have say a 2nd line LW and 3rd line LW in the line up which should have been doable over 6 years of drafting?

[b]We wouldn't have had these guys if we were drafting forwards. The only reason we have them is because we drafted dmen. You seem to be under the assumption that every 20th+ overall pick is going to be slotted in the line up. You were talking about how it's not that simple to just make a trade but then make it sound super easy to just draft a top 6 forward every year along with an NHL capable dman[/b].

In bold above: No what I was simply saying is that we could have had similar type players, not those exact players if we drafted well. How is that unreasonable to assume we could draft a 2nd and 3rd line LW in the top 200 picks over 5 drafts?????? That seems a lot more likely than continuing to draft the same type of player, then hope he develops (just as a forward could that you could have drafted its the same theory in that you hope the draft pick develops well) but..... AND THEN you still have to find a trade partner who wants your assets AND THEN has assets you covet. Its 2 extra steps beyond hoping just they turn out to be good players.

I just find it super strange that people think its a good overall strategy to draft players for the purpose of trading them to obtain the types of players we dont draft........than it is to just draft players for the purpose of them being good enough to play the position to begin with, because you are hoping the same thing from your d draft picks? That they turn out good. Just as you would any player you draft.

I was really ok with it until this draft (and Staal trade). It just seems counter productive. We have no choice BUT to trade these assets now.

The point I was making on Whitney is - is everyone happy to draft a guy 5th overall and trade him for Chris Kunitz? Couldnt we have simply drafted a 35 goal scorer with the 5th overall spot? Is that unreasonable? Would anyone here take Chris Kunitz 5th overall in any draft?

And - Yes: I know people have heard of those guys, I type like everyone can understand the sarcastic tone sometimes. I was just making a point that everyone is acting like us trading for Kunitz was like us trading for Rick Nash in an excitement leading up to it kind of a way.

Finally after next season our roster is:

Kunitz Malkin Neal
Crosby
Sutter
Glass

And in two seasons:
Malkin Neal (assuming malkin signs which of course I think he will)
Crosby
(with only Martin under contract on defense)

I understand that there is a lot of time left, a few seasons is an eternity and a lot of cap space. But taking into account this off season and the way FA went - and the fact we have ZERO forward prospects, and some of the "resignable guys" getting older, is everyone is ok with trading 4 defensive players or 5 even - leaving our entire farm system baron (assuming the other guys on defense are up in the NHL and doing well) AND knowing we still need to sign a big penalty killing type of d-men or two regardless?

Keep in mind we will be trading players in the years we have them under control therefore cheaper, most likely for more expensive forwards.

[sniper]

In bold above: No what I was simply saying is that we could have had similar type players, not those exact players if we drafted well. How is that unreasonable to assume we could draft a 2nd and 3rd line LW in the top 200 picks over 5 drafts?????? That seems a lot more likely than continuing to draft the same type of player, then hope he develops (just as a forward could that you could have drafted its the same theory in that you hope the draft pick develops well) but..... AND THEN you still have to find a trade partner who wants your assets AND THEN has assets you covet. Its 2 extra steps beyond hoping just they turn out to be good players.

I just find it super strange that people think its a good overall strategy to draft players for the purpose of trading them to obtain the types of players we dont draft........than it is to just draft players for the purpose of them being good enough to play the position to begin with, because you are hoping the same thing from your d draft picks? That they turn out good. Just as you would any player you draft.

I was really ok with it until this draft (and Staal trade). It just seems counter productive. We have no choice BUT to trade these assets now.

The point I was making on Whitney is - is everyone happy to draft a guy 5th overall and trade him for Chris Kunitz? Couldnt we have simply drafted a 35 goal scorer with the 5th overall spot? Is that unreasonable? Would anyone here take Chris Kunitz 5th overall in any draft?

And - Yes: I know people have heard of those guys, I type like everyone can understand the sarcastic tone sometimes. I was just making a point that everyone is acting like us trading for Kunitz was like us trading for Rick Nash in an excitement leading up to it kind of a way.

Finally after next season our roster is:

Kunitz Malkin Neal
Crosby
Sutter
Glass

And in two seasons:
Malkin Neal (assuming malkin signs which of course I think he will)
Crosby
(with only Martin under contract on defense)

I understand that there is a lot of time left, a few seasons is an eternity and a lot of cap space. But taking into account this off season and the way FA went - and the fact we have ZERO forward prospects, and some of the "resignable guys" getting older, is everyone is ok with trading 4 defensive players or 5 even - leaving our entire farm system baron (assuming the other guys on defense are up in the NHL and doing well) AND knowing we still need to sign a big penalty killing type of d-men or two regardless?

You do realize that pretty much since Shero became GM that the only guys locked up longer than 2 years have been Crosby, Malkin, and Staal right? Now it will be Crosby, Malkin, and Neal. It hasn't been a problem in the past. In fact he purposely gives out the contracts this way. Why do you feel this is an issue?

As far as drafting forwards goes I understand why you think it's a good idea to get more forwards in the system. However, I really think Shero looks at the team and says you know what with Crosby, Malkin and Neal we aren't going to have to worry about scoring. Those guys are capable of producing even with lesser wingers. I think his plan is to draft a surplus of defensemen that project to be top 4 guys with the intent of building a superb defense to go along with Crosby, Malkin, and Neal and then filling in the rest of the offense with FA or guys brought in by trade when trades make sense. This seems like a good plan to me.

[no name]

I don't know enough about prospects to judge them, but if i go by rankings we had a ok draft. Right now we are full of Defencmen prospects and if we can bring in the likes of Neal and Kunitz via trades for these guys. I am all for letting Shero doing what he is doing.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

In bold above: No what I was simply saying is that we could have had similar type players, not those exact players if we drafted well. How is that unreasonable to assume we could draft a 2nd and 3rd line LW in the top 200 picks over 5 drafts?????? That seems a lot more likely than continuing to draft the same type of player, then hope he develops (just as a forward could that you could have drafted its the same theory in that you hope the draft pick develops well) but..... AND THEN you still have to find a trade partner who wants your assets AND THEN has assets you covet. Its 2 extra steps beyond hoping just they turn out to be good players.

I just find it super strange that people think its a good overall strategy to draft players for the purpose of trading them to obtain the types of players we dont draft........than it is to just draft players for the purpose of them being good enough to play the position to begin with, because you are hoping the same thing from your d draft picks? That they turn out good. Just as you would any player you draft.

I was really ok with it until this draft (and Staal trade). It just seems counter productive. We have no choice BUT to trade these assets now.

The point I was making on Whitney is - is everyone happy to draft a guy 5th overall and trade him for Chris Kunitz? Couldnt we have simply drafted a 35 goal scorer with the 5th overall spot? Is that unreasonable? Would anyone here take Chris Kunitz 5th overall in any draft?

And - Yes: I know people have heard of those guys, I type like everyone can understand the sarcastic tone sometimes. I was just making a point that everyone is acting like us trading for Kunitz was like us trading for Rick Nash in an excitement leading up to it kind of a way.

Finally after next season our roster is:

Kunitz Malkin Neal
Crosby
Sutter
Glass

And in two seasons:
Malkin Neal (assuming malkin signs which of course I think he will)
Crosby
(with only Martin under contract on defense)

I understand that there is a lot of time left, a few seasons is an eternity and a lot of cap space. But taking into account this off season and the way FA went - and the fact we have ZERO forward prospects, and some of the "resignable guys" getting older, is everyone is ok with trading 4 defensive players or 5 even - leaving our entire farm system baron (assuming the other guys on defense are up in the NHL and doing well) AND knowing we still need to sign a big penalty killing type of d-men or two regardless?

You do realize that pretty much since Shero became GM that the only guys locked up longer than 2 years have been Crosby, Malkin, and Staal right? Now it will be Crosby, Malkin, and Neal. It hasn't been a problem in the past. In fact he purposely gives out the contracts this way. Why do you feel this is an issue?

As far as drafting forwards goes I understand why you think it's a good idea to get more forwards in the system. However, I really think Shero looks at the team and says you know what with Crosby, Malkin and Neal we aren't going to have to worry about scoring. Those guys are capable of producing even with lesser wingers. I think his plan is to draft a surplus of defensemen that project to be top 4 guys with the intent of building a superb defense to go along with Crosby, Malkin, and Neal and then filling in the rest of the offense with FA or guys brought in by trade when trades make sense. This seems like a good plan to me.

Its only an issue now because its completely baron and that philosophy while ok for a bit has completely stripped us of all of our forward depth which was painfully obvious in the playoffs. I just think its crazy to be ok with ZERO prospects at the forward position and think we can just trade them each one off for Chris Kunitz. Whitney had been in the NHL 4 years before that trade I think.

To even get a Kunitz now it would take at least 2 of them as they are still prospects. The depth chart moving forward is a bit of an issue compared to before because we dont have a Staal anymore, or a younger Cooke, or a young (what we thought was good 3rd liner) TK and so on.

It all needs filled now beyond 3 guys. Every bit of it. I cant apologize if that just seems insane to me.

At some point you are going to need young guys to contribute when you are this top heavy in a cap world. This we can just simply build around Crosby and Malkin and plug some guys in theory has gotten us bounced 3 years in a row and very early. One year we ended up with Poni as the fill in, a few of those years Malkin had no wingers and now Crosby didnt/doesnt - and for the first time our 3rd and 4th lines performed those roles terribly - so now they need tweaked or redone too.

[Zach6668]

Which playoffs were you watching? Forward depth was not an issue.

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw. If I weren't on my phone is probably explain myself better.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Which playoffs were you watching? Forward depth was not an issue.

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw. If I weren't on my phone is probably explain myself better.

The playoffs I was watching had Dupuis on the ice for 14 goals against (some PK but still), nothing out of Sullivan (a blank spot now),
nothing out of cooke or Kennedy, and nothing out of our 4th line.

[topshelf]

All the other teams besides the Pens draft better than we do because they've won consecutive Stanley Cups and we haven't won since 2009!!!!!!!!¡!!!!!¡!!!!!!!

[Zach6668]

Which playoffs were you watching? Forward depth was not an issue.

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw. If I weren't on my phone is probably explain myself better.

The playoffs I was watching had Dupuis on the ice for 14 goals against (some PK but still), nothing out of Sullivan (a blank spot now),
nothing out of cooke or Kennedy, and nothing out of our 4th line.

Serious sample size problems...

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Which playoffs were you watching? Forward depth was not an issue.

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw. If I weren't on my phone is probably explain myself better.

The playoffs I was watching had Dupuis on the ice for 14 goals against (some PK but still), nothing out of Sullivan (a blank spot now),
nothing out of cooke or Kennedy, and nothing out of our 4th line.

Serious sample size problems...

Ill go back every playoff for Dupuis since 08 and every other one since 09 for the rest.

Well next year I sure hope I can attend the Presidents Trophy Parade down Grant St. Should be a blast.

[It'sagreatdayforhockey!]

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw.

+1


The most ironic part about the whole thing is that while complaining about Kunitz-Whitney trade, it isn't pointed out that we also got that all important forward prospect and he has been a bust so far.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw.

+1


The most ironic part about the whole thing is that while complaining about Kunitz-Whitney trade, it isn't pointed out that we also got that all important forward prospect and he has been a bust so far.

I am confused why your ompletrly disagree with me then?

[Defence21]

I think you're wrong about everything and I agree win bhaw.

+1


The most ironic part about the whole thing is that while complaining about Kunitz-Whitney trade, it isn't pointed out that we also got that all important forward prospect and he has been a bust so far.

I am confused why your ompletrly disagree with me then?

Could it be a sign that the Penguins are strong at finding, drafting, and developing defensive prospects than they are are finding, drafting and developing forward prospects?

[mikey287]

Or maybe they weren't drafting on position and were drafting the players they deemed to be the best available at their draft spot?

ISS and other Hockey outlets had Pouliot ranked in the teens.... Forsberg was ranked 3rd

ISS is just like any other reputable "guide", each team has their own ranking of the players and varies substantially from the ISS...what was Grigorenko on the ISS rank? 4th? I know of at least 2 or 3 teams that didn't have him in their top 20...

The only reason why anyone would be remotely upset about not picking Forsberg or Teravainen is because a draft guide told them that they should have went already...it's not like anyone complaining about this is identifying the talents that make him look like an impact player for us...the only critiques of not picking him are attributable to his position and what the number to the left of his name in some draft guide says...there's no critical thought, just baseless criticism...

While we're just throwing things out there for the hell of it, the reason why we didn't pick Forsberg is because he'll never play an NHL game. There, that was easy. Whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter, because it's of similar validity to the reasons of why we should have picked him...

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Or maybe they weren't drafting on position and were drafting the players they deemed to be the best available at their draft spot?

ISS and other Hockey outlets had Pouliot ranked in the teens.... Forsberg was ranked 3rd

ISS is just like any other reputable "guide", each team has their own ranking of the players and varies substantially from the ISS...what was Grigorenko on the ISS rank? 4th? I know of at least 2 or 3 teams that didn't have him in their top 20...

The only reason why anyone would be remotely upset about not picking Forsberg or Teravainen is because a draft guide told them that they should have went already...it's not like anyone complaining about this is identifying the talents that make him look like an impact player for us...the only critiques of not picking him are attributable to his position and what the number to the left of his name in some draft guide says...there's no critical thought, just baseless criticism...

While we're just throwing things out there for the hell of it, the reason why we didn't pick Forsberg is because he'll never play an NHL game. There, that was easy. Whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter, because it's of similar validity to the reasons of why we should have picked him...

I dont disagree with what you wrote. I am not talking about one particular pick over the other. I am specifically stating concerns that our forward crop is completely baron of any talent, and in a year, and then two we wont have any forwards left period without trades or FA. Not to mention defensive players seem to have a harder time and higher bust rate, not to mention how long it takes to get them there.

At least before we could resign Kunitz, Cooke, Dupuis, TK, Adams. We probably wont want any of those guys.

I am simply concerned mostly because the infamous Whitney and Gologoski trades that everyone thinks we can just keep doing didnt happen until their 3rd or 4th seasons in the big leagues anyways (as well as trading a top 5 pick for Kunitz isnt exactly a great plan).

I am not saying I am 100% correct, just that I cant believe anyone thinks its a better strategy than simply drafting a forward who can play because in 7 years we MIGHT be able to trade the d-men and get slightly better value.

[Idoit40fans]

Yeah, my concern with the drafting isn't really with Forsberg, its with the strategy in general. I don't see how defensemen are the highest ranked players on the board as often as they are. Do the Penguins scout forwards?

[mikey287]

I'd say the strategy is to draft players that we think are better than others. You don't just draft a forward because you need forwards. You draft a forward because he's the right forward...if they determined that Teravainen or Forsberg weren't right, or they weren't high on him, then that's the end of the discussion...the only reason why anyone even knows who they are is because a list came out and put a fairly arbitrary number next to their name...

There's no reason to force it...if my choices are a player that I feel is top 5 available in the draft or so (which the Pens did with Pouliot it seems) or get a forward that we have determined to not be as good as with a lower ceiling...I'll just draft Pouliot...

Again, I said it from before the draft that I'm not wild about Teravainen and didn't really get the hype behind Forsberg really...they weren't special talents or special players or anything like that...and that stance seemed to be justified by scouts and GMs from around the league when they fell...not saying they will or won't, but I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them become impact NHL players...

We'll re-stock the forwards soon enough, the brass is aware...

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

I'd say the strategy is to draft players that we think are better than others. You don't just draft a forward because you need forwards. You draft a forward because he's the right forward...if they determined that Teravainen or Forsberg weren't right, or they weren't high on him, then that's the end of the discussion...the only reason why anyone even knows who they are is because a list came out and put a fairly arbitrary number next to their name...

There's no reason to force it...if my choices are a player that I feel is top 5 available in the draft or so (which the Pens did with Pouliot it seems) or get a forward that we have determined to not be as good as with a lower ceiling...I'll just draft Pouliot...

Again, I said it from before the draft that I'm not wild about Teravainen and didn't really get the hype behind Forsberg really...they weren't special talents or special players or anything like that...and that stance seemed to be justified by scouts and GMs from around the league when they fell...not saying they will or won't, but I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them become impact NHL players...

We'll re-stock the forwards soon enough, the brass is aware...

I agree there is no reason to force but I just think they having been forcing picking d-men. We now have no chips to include with any trade to get rid of one of them for a good wing. Unless its desperation time at the trade deadline for a team getting rid of an impending veteran FA I just dont see us unable to unload any of these top prospects one off for an NHL ready forward back.

[Gaucho]

It's worse: a list comes out, people fall in love with certain players, then feel dejected when their team picks somebody else.

*shrug*

[mikey287]

I'd say the strategy is to draft players that we think are better than others. You don't just draft a forward because you need forwards. You draft a forward because he's the right forward...if they determined that Teravainen or Forsberg weren't right, or they weren't high on him, then that's the end of the discussion...the only reason why anyone even knows who they are is because a list came out and put a fairly arbitrary number next to their name...

There's no reason to force it...if my choices are a player that I feel is top 5 available in the draft or so (which the Pens did with Pouliot it seems) or get a forward that we have determined to not be as good as with a lower ceiling...I'll just draft Pouliot...

Again, I said it from before the draft that I'm not wild about Teravainen and didn't really get the hype behind Forsberg really...they weren't special talents or special players or anything like that...and that stance seemed to be justified by scouts and GMs from around the league when they fell...not saying they will or won't, but I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them become impact NHL players...

We'll re-stock the forwards soon enough, the brass is aware...

I agree there is no reason to force but I just think they having been forcing picking d-men. We now have no chips to include with any trade to get rid of one of them for a good wing. Unless its desperation time at the trade deadline for a team getting rid of an impending veteran FA I just dont see us unable to unload any of these top prospects one off for an NHL ready forward back.

I don't think we're force picking d-men. That wouldn't even make sense really. This was defenseman's draft, and we got two guys we really liked in the first round. If we drafted a forward in either or both of those two spots, we still wouldn't have any chips to put into a trade. So, we'll figure something out or we'll just have to get creative. But drafting a forward there doesn't have any positive impact towards the organization if we don't believe he was good enough to be picked there. The organization felt it could get good value on forwards later and they got a guy that was projected to be a first rounder when the season started in Marcantuoni and a player that is closer to getting a pro contract because he's a year older in Zlobin. So that's what they did.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

I'd say the strategy is to draft players that we think are better than others. You don't just draft a forward because you need forwards. You draft a forward because he's the right forward...if they determined that Teravainen or Forsberg weren't right, or they weren't high on him, then that's the end of the discussion...the only reason why anyone even knows who they are is because a list came out and put a fairly arbitrary number next to their name...

There's no reason to force it...if my choices are a player that I feel is top 5 available in the draft or so (which the Pens did with Pouliot it seems) or get a forward that we have determined to not be as good as with a lower ceiling...I'll just draft Pouliot...

Again, I said it from before the draft that I'm not wild about Teravainen and didn't really get the hype behind Forsberg really...they weren't special talents or special players or anything like that...and that stance seemed to be justified by scouts and GMs from around the league when they fell...not saying they will or won't, but I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them become impact NHL players...

We'll re-stock the forwards soon enough, the brass is aware...

I agree there is no reason to force but I just think they having been forcing picking d-men. We now have no chips to include with any trade to get rid of one of them for a good wing. Unless its desperation time at the trade deadline for a team getting rid of an impending veteran FA I just dont see us unable to unload any of these top prospects one off for an NHL ready forward back.

I don't think we're force picking d-men. That wouldn't even make sense really. This was defenseman's draft, and we got two guys we really liked in the first round. If we drafted a forward in either or both of those two spots, we still wouldn't have any chips to put into a trade. So, we'll figure something out or we'll just have to get creative. But drafting a forward there doesn't have any positive impact towards the organization if we don't believe he was good enough to be picked there. The organization felt it could get good value on forwards later and they got a guy that was projected to be a first rounder when the season started in Marcantuoni and a player that is closer to getting a pro contract because he's a year older in Zlobin. So that's what they did.

Sure, but my point isnt just about this draft. And all my points more for when I was discussing with people that the Pens have this master plan to stock on d-men so they can trade them because d-men are so coveted. That just doesnt make sense to me for many reasons that I have said including how long they take to be real assets and wouldnt it be just easier to draft a forward who can play, and probably years earlier?

I mean in either situation the hope is the player develops to be a solid NHL player so I am not sure how that plan makes any sense at all?

[mikey287]

Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.