steelhammer wrote: Defence21 wrote: steelhammer wrote:
Fire0nice228 wrote:It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..
Again, people seem to forget that it took 7 years to develop each of Whitney and Goligoski. The only player D we have with enough experience tobe traded for a high return is Letang. Maybe that is the long-term strategy, but do we really want to trade one of the best D-men in the league?
That's a misleading statement. It took three years to develop Whitney. He came into the NHL three years after being drafted. The Penguins chose to trade him 7 years after drafting him. There's a big difference. Goligoski took four years to make it to the NHL permanently, and then spent 2.5 seasons with the Penguins before they chose to trade him.
Just because it took the Penguins roughly 7 years to trade these two doesn't mean it took the Penguins seven years to develop their talent to the point that they could be traded. In fact, the opposite could be said of Whitney, who seemed to be declining at the time the Penguins traded him.
What do you think the term "developing" means? It took 7 years to trade those players from the time they were drafted. There is nothing misleading about that statement, it's simply a fact. The whole "lets trade a d prospect for forward" only works if that player can play effectively in the NHL.
Defence21 wrote:With the amount of money defensemen are making now, it's really difficult to argue against stockpiling defense prospects with aspirations of trading them down the line. These are the perfect types of players to land a big-name player at the trade deadline, as teams generally aren't looking to take on salary at that point.
While this line of thought is not wrong, it assumes a lot of things going right for a franchise to be in the position to do so. It also reflects poorly on our scouting staff's (in)ability to spot forward talent. Someday (now?) it will pay to have a highly rated forward prospect on an entry-level deal and not on his 2nd contract or later.
Defence21 wrote:As for Forsberg, after speaking with Mikey about him, he seems a bit like an Esposito in that his stock has fallen quite a bit...to the point that it will be years before he makes it to the NHL, if he ever does. So, would you rather the Penguins take a risk on a falling stock or take the sure-shot, rising stock?
It's funny how many people rag on Shero for his "poor drafting" with the Esposito pick, but at the time raved about how awesome of a pick that was.
That's a heck of a logical leap to call Forsberg a possible bust, or even a falling stock. Most scouts considered him to be the safest pick among forwards this draft (i.e. very little chance of bust). And his rating never changed - he was the top rated euro forward prospect all throughout the season). He'll be in the NHL by the 13-14 season. Yes, offensive d-men are all the rage right now, but so were Eric Lindros clones in the mid-90's. As were Russian forwards in the late 90's (whoops). We'll at least have a front seat view of how this turns out.
I'm not going to respond in line with quotes, as I don't have the time, but I'll respond quickly to each of your statements...
1. Why do you assume that Whitney and Goligoski were with the Penguins solely to be traded? Trades aren't hinged on stages of development. In other words, why do you assume the Penguins traded Whitney and Goligoski immediately at the conclusion of their development? Just because they were traded 7 years after being drafted doesn't mean they didn't have significant value earlier. Instead, it's more likely a case of the Penguins wanting them to play for the Penguins rather than another team -- but when offense proved to be a necessity and depth on defense proved to be a strong point, these players were traded. For example, by your logic, the Penguins still haven't developed Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. -- after all, they haven't yet been traded, right?
2. Whether the scouting staff has the ability to recognize offensive talent is not for me to judge. I'm not an expert on prospects and simply rely on those whom I trust to provide me with legitimate information. That being said, it absolutely would be nice to have some top-notch entry-level forwards climbing the ranks. That being said, I'm not a fan of taking players based on position. I'm about collecting the best possible assets. It would have been a shame to see the Penguins select Bobby Ryan instead of Crosby because they wanted a right winger. Just saying...
3. As for Forsberg, I never called him a bust. It hasn't even been a month since the draft. That being said, there are very knowledgeable people out there who are questioning Forsberg's ability to translate his game to the NHL. In February, he was ranked the third best draft-eligible player, according to ISS. I even read a quote to the effect of "Though Forsberg ranks third, it wouldn't be at all surprising to hear his name called first overall in June." He went 11th. Either 10 NHL teams have terrible scouts and can't read scouting reports, or there are some concerns with Forsberg's game. From Michael Farkas in a conversation with me: "Forsberg isn't any sort of special prospect, so no, he won't be in Washington this year. He's still 17 for a little bit too, he's one of the youngest prospects taken. His team is still stuck in second-tier Sweden (Allsvenskan), so he's definitely not ready. He's at least a couple years away, if he makes it at all."