
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
czwalga wrote:If his name wasnt forsberg people wouldnt care as much.
Godric wrote:Can someone please convince me that not taking Filip Forsberg was the right decision
czwalga wrote:If his name wasnt forsberg people wouldnt care as much.
Gaucho wrote:czwalga wrote:If his name wasnt forsberg people wouldnt care as much.
pens_CT wrote:I don't have a problem with taking them a defenseman at the 8th slot. The three teams above them in the draft (Toronto, Anaheim, and Minnesota) all could have used offense (Forsberg) and opted for defense instead. You have to go best available player there regardless of position. Now you can argue whether Pouliot was the best defenseman available at that point. I personally hoped they would have drafted Jacob Trouba instead. He is bigger than Pouliot, a willing hitter, is probably better in his own end right now, but doesn't have the offensive upside. Pouliot seems like Goligoski version 2, which isn't bad if we can trade him for version 2 of James Neal in 3 years or so.
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..
steelhammer wrote:It just shows how poor our european scouting really is that we couldn't even take the #1 rated European player when available.
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?
Fire0nice228 wrote:Whose to say we dont strike a deal for a forward prospect with one of our d prospects?
Fire0nice228 wrote:Whose to say we dont strike a deal for a forward prospect with one of our d prospects? I mean.. there are plenty of ways to fill holes in an organization.. Maybe they just didnt like Forsberg? Maybe we don't have a big enough scouting presence in certain parts of the world.. After the deal RS swung for Neal I don't see how anyone can argue with the strategy if it is infact build D assets and trade.. GoGo was a #5 dman here who if I remember correctly was quite frequently the whipping boy for his turnovers and he was turned into a top line 40 goal scorer..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
steelhammer wrote:pens_CT wrote:I don't have a problem with taking them a defenseman at the 8th slot. The three teams above them in the draft (Toronto, Anaheim, and Minnesota) all could have used offense (Forsberg) and opted for defense instead. You have to go best available player there regardless of position. Now you can argue whether Pouliot was the best defenseman available at that point. I personally hoped they would have drafted Jacob Trouba instead. He is bigger than Pouliot, a willing hitter, is probably better in his own end right now, but doesn't have the offensive upside. Pouliot seems like Goligoski version 2, which isn't bad if we can trade him for version 2 of James Neal in 3 years or so.
3 year?!? Try 7. That's how long Whitney and Goligoski took to develop and trade. It just shows how poor our european scouting really is that we couldn't even take the #1 rated European player when available. And none of those teams you listed had the defensive prospect depth going into the draft that the Pens already had. And to top it off the Pens had literally just acquired yet another highly rated D prospect seconds before the pick. Pouliot could very well end up being a fantastic player and I actually do really like him. I'm more upset though to see the Pens squander rare opportunities like this and continue to ignore our lack of high end prospects at forward. Now we have to pray that we caught lightning with one of our other forward picks, just like every other year.
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.
Idoit40fans wrote:Not taking Forsberg makes no sense. Rated higher by the entire world and while neither player is ready now, Forsberg would have helped to fill a giant weakness in the system. There isn't an argument for not taking him. I guess you could argue that there is something they saw that others didn't see, but I think given their recent history its more likely that there is something there that the Pens didn't see.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests