Yep. Also took offense to the "A lot of big years for BU recently". Lolz.BC grad?
Junior and the NCAA, mostly. Of their top prospects, only Subban has played a full season in pro.Where the fuck are these 10 B+ prospects McGuire keeps talking about?
Have to agree with this. Didn't reach for a forward, Fabbro has the higher upside but lower floor and with Chychrun I don't trust Sweeney's judgment enough to catch a falling knife.McAvoy is the safe pick. I'm not thrilled, but at least I know who he is - and I know he was projected to go in that general timeframe. Thank god.
Bob McKenzie had him going to the Bruins at 14. I think safe is exactly what it is.I'm just not that sure safe is the word I would use to describe McAvoy.
Sweeney looks like death
Yeah figure those players are generally a couple years away regardless so no use drafting for need unless the system has an absurd glaring deficiency that can actually be addressed at that spot. Which it doesn't seem to.I don't care what they do position wise with the 29th. I would go with BPA.
When the cupboard is bare, there's no risk of drafting for need.I don't care what they do position wise with the 29th. I would go with BPA.
Prospect wise, the cupboard is far from bare.When the cupboard is bare, there's no risk of drafting for need.
OutstandingThis is dragging on longer than a Charlie Jacobs-called auction.
It's certainly not bare - but there's also no truly elite prospects in the pipeline either. Senyshen and Forsbacka-Karlsson might be the closest things they have, and even they're not sure things at this point.Prospect wise, the cupboard is far from bare.
Not sure Gauthier is one of those guys who dominated because he was so much bigger and stronger than everyone in the Q. And even with that he kind of disappeared during the second half of the season this year. Kid is an absolute physical beast.I'd love to see the Bruins try to move up and grab Gauthier. He's the type of goal scorer this team needs.
I didn't say anything about whether they had a plethora of elite prospects. And it's not even close to bare. Prospect depth is one of the only positive things I have for the Bruins right now.It's certainly not bare - but there's also no truly elite prospects in the pipeline either. Senyshen and Forsbacka-Karlsson might be the closest things they have, and even they're not sure things at this point.
I can confirm that he will. He started making the pick right after they picked McAvoyI wonder if Charlie Jacobs will make the announcement of the Bruins next pick.
That's what I was criticizing McGuire's comments for. I like their prospect depth. I think they have plenty of guys that will be good 2-4 line players and 3-6 defensemen. But you can't say they have 10 B+ prospects when theirs really not a potential top line forward or top pair defenseman in the group.I didn't say anything about whether they had a plethora of elite prospects. And it's not even close to bare. Prospect depth is one of the only positive things I have for the Bruins right now.
Chayka gave up Vitale + 53.Outstanding draft for Arizona thus far, Keller + Chychrun while you pick up Vitale + 53 for Datsyuk's dead cap hit.
Fuck I hate-love Chayka.
Yikes, my bad, been paying less attention than I should.Chayka gave up Vitale + 53.
Looks to me like Detroit got out from under Datsyuks cap hit for free.
Retract the Coyotes.
I can't claim to know hockey prospects as well as I know baseball ones (the numbers don't translate in the same way, and my eyes don't catch as much...which is weird because I was a better hockey player than a baseball player, but I digress), but this line of logic bothers me because as best I can tell, outside of the absolute top prospects (i.e. the Kanes, the Ekblads, etc) hockey seems about as random as baseball (or basketball for that matter) in terms of prospects actually becoming the players they were projected to be. Guys like Marchand, Bergeron, Chara, Krejci, etc., all become much better players than they were ever projected to be, while outside of the Top 20 or so prospects (overall, not organizationally) it's completely random as to whether they make it or not, and even a good number of those Top 20 guys don't pan out (and a lot of those Top 20 guys get ranked there despite already having NHL time logged, to a degree that in other sports they wouldn't be considered a "prospect" anymore). It seems to me that depth of "good" prospects is about as good as you can expect from an organization, because you're not going to be loaded with Top 20 prospects in all of hockey, and some of those "good" prospects are just as likely as the guys in the rest of Top 50 to actually become star caliber players.That's what I was criticizing McGuire's comments for. I like their prospect depth. I think they have plenty of guys that will be good 2-4 line players and 3-6 defensemen. But you can't say they have 10 B+ prospects when theirs really not a potential top line forward or top pair defenseman in the group.