Hindsight: Marc Pouliot and Zach Parise

It’s been fashionable since somewhere around the end of 2006 to hammer the Oilers and their scouting staff for a decision to trade down from the #17 spot in the 2003 Draft for the #22 and #68 picks. To some degree, such criticism is deserved – after all, Zach Parise scored 45 goals last season, and Marc Pouliot has 14 for his NHL career. However, it’s good to remember that things weren’t so clear cut a few years ago.

The video above is a very good example of this. Some selected quotes:

Miller: “Pouliot would be a nice pick.”
McKenzie: “Pouliot… would be a good pick for Edmonton at this point in the draft, a guy who has really slid, and who a lot of people thought would have a chance to crack the top ten.”
Miller: “Sometimes guys get overlooked because they play on very poor junior team – that happened to Paul Coffey when he was picked by the Edmonton Oilers more than twenty years ago (McGuire: “Absolutely”).
McGuire: “I don’t think we can say enough about the Oilers scouting staff; they’ve really positioned themselves to be a strong team for a long period of time.”

Other fun points:

  • McKenzie also had Pouliot rated 13th overall based on what NHL scouts were saying.
  • Pierre McGuire thinks skating is an intangible.

Another case in point: this media round table from the summer of 2005. Guy Flaming, who at the time was a writer for Hockey’s Future asked a group of notable local media personalities (Robin Brownlee, Jason Gregor, Jim Matheson, and Jordi Weidman) some questions about the Oilers’ prospect crop. There’s a lot of interesting stuff there (especially for someone who follows prospects like I do) but the question and answers that are likely to be of the most interest to readers here is as follows:

#19 – In 2003 the Oilers traded their first round pick to New Jersey and moved down in the draft. As a result of the deal the Devils selected Zack Parise and Edmonton ended up with Pouliot and Jacques. At this point, who do you feel “won” the trade?
Brownlee: Too early to tell. Parise had a good rookie year in Albany and was good enough to be added to the U.S. Team at the World Championships. He’s made the jump to the next level. So has Jacques, in limited duty, but Pouliot still hasn’t played a pro game. Right now, it’s a wash.
Gregor: Oilers without a doubt. Pouliot will score more at the NHL level and Jacques could be a decent fourth or possibly third line guy.
Matheson: It’s too early to say who won after they traded down with Jersey in 2003 and gave up a shot at Parise. Parise was very good in his rookie AHL season in Albany, on a bad team. But, Pouliot looks like he could be a second-line NHL center in time and Jacques an Ethan Moreau type on a third line.
Weidman: At this point the Devils are “winning” the trade. Parise’s 58 points in 73 games with Albany is very impressive. Wait a couple years and I’m pretty confident the Oilers will say they made out with better deal. It depends on Jacques. Pouliot should be able to match Parise’s numbers in his first year pro.
Flaming: Knowing that there were three or four players of more interest than Parise was to the Oilers at the time they made that trade, getting two quality players for the price of one is a great deal. However, the proof is in the pudding and until Pouliot and Jacques play professionally you can’t say for certain. At this point though, if I’m the Oilers I’m pretty happy.

The point here isn’t to pick on anyone’s opinion, but simply to give an idea of what the range of opinion was – because what’s written here really isn’t out of line with what the consensus was at the time; a time period two years after the trade.

By my count, we have two media people on the fence, two favouring Edmonton, and one favouring New Jersey. At this point there was very little separation between Pouliot and Parise.

Was it a poor trade? From where we sit now, we can say it clearly was. However, even two years after the trade was made that wasn’t an obvious conclusion. The most interesting line in that quote above comes courtesy of Flaming:

Knowing that there were three or four players of more interest than Parise was to the Oilers at the time they made that trade, getting two quality players for the price of one is a great deal.

The Oilers had Parise ranked lower than that pick; it’s fair to ask if they would have picked him there even if they hadn’t been able to make a trade. It was hardly only the Oilers that didn’t believe in Parise, either: the Islanders (a team that Parise’s father played for) preferred Robert Nilsson, while the Sharks preferred Steve Bernier with the two picks immediately preceding Edmonton’s selection.

None of this is to excuse the Oilers: they’ve taken knocks, and deservedly so. It’s just a reminder that draft-day mistakes are very rarely so clear-cut at the time, or even for years afterwards.

  • Hippy

    David S wrote:

    ~“I don’t think we can say enough about the Oilers scouting staff; they’ve really positioned themselves to be a strong team for a long period of time.”~
    Fixed.

    lmfao, sadly

    Taking Jeff petry instead of Lucic was brilliant, Prentergast. How the heall does that guy even have a job at this point. My 6 year old nephew could have picked Gagner and Cogliano

  • Hippy

    MattL wrote:

    So it has been meteoric?

    Good catch..
    Oil-man-Dan wrote:

    It’s “meteoric” as in fast as a METEOR, not “medioric” which seems to be some bastardized take on the word medium, I guess.

    Thank you again.

    I was intending to say, that it hasn't been a steady progression for Parise, more a one day he's a good player, the next fantastic. It wasn't something a lot of experts would have seen coming based on his early career stats.

  • Hippy

    DanMan wrote:

    David S wrote:
    ~“I don’t think we can say enough about the Oilers scouting staff; they’ve really positioned themselves to be a strong team for a long period of time.”~
    Fixed.
    lmfao, sadly
    Taking Jeff petry instead of Lucic was brilliant, Prentergast. How the heall does that guy even have a job at this point. My 6 year old nephew could have picked Gagner and Cogliano

    Ridiculous comment. Petry/Lucic wasn't some set in stone, clear cut choice at the time. If you're going to get all up in arms and demand they be fired for something like that then you could make the same case for every scouting staff in the NHL.

  • Hippy

    Guys, I'm not a nitpicker usually, more of a rah-rah, yeah I agree with you kind of guy but I could NOT disagree more with you about this one. (meaning I do disagree – kind of confusing, isn't it)

    I'm a bit of a draft junkie and everything I read on Zach Parise back then was absolutely SOLID on the kid. Not average player solid, f***in' star in the making solid. According to the reports I read on him he had:

    -Leadership – off the charts, they went on and on about the kid's leadership qualities, how he had learned that from his dad but had way more talent.
    -Goal scoring
    -Play-making skills
    -Always seemed to rise to the occasion
    -Maturity
    -Unselfish player

    Except he had this one problem – he was only 5'10". By all accounts back then the report was that size WASN'T going to be a problem for him because of the style that he played. He just was never going to be a power-forward type, obviously.

    There were a lot of great players that year, but considering who was already picked this WAS a no-brainer at the time…if not for his height. (Looking back crystal ball style, yes Ryan Getzlaf would have been a great pick at #17 too, but it wasn't known that he would be this good back then, and you can only go by what you know at the time, so I won't hold that against the Oilers.) As for his height, considering everything he brings to the team we could have easily brought in bigger guys to play with him after getting his skill.

    When the New York Islanders picked Nilsson one pick before the Oilers Pierre McGuire absolutely ripped that team for passing on Zach Parise. "That is why they are a so-and-so (bush-league) franchise… and on and on it went". When the Oilers traded their pick to Jersey the very next pick TSN went to commercial and nothing was ever said about Edmonton's decision and when they came back everything was all rosy with McGuire.

    It's because we DON'T hold our guys accountable that we are in this position, with our drafts as well as our farm team(s) for the last too-many-years to count.

    As for the Poo, he sucks, plain and simple, and I wish J.F. Jacques all the best, but honestly I would trade 100 of those guys for one guy that can put the puck in the net, tries his hardest every night, and cares.

    I want to add that our drafting has been worlds better now after some changes, but again this is looking back to 2003. And there was no excuse for it even then…in my not-so-humble opinion about this.

  • Hippy

    The Oilers didn't take Parise for one reason and one reason only — his size. In hindsight, it was the wrong call, but it was understandable at the time.

    With Mike Comrie, Todd Marchant, Mike York, Brian Swanson (all 5-10 or under), Marty Reasoner and Shawn Horcoff, the Oilers were too soft and way too small down the middle.

  • Hippy

    Robin Brownlee wrote:

    The Oilers didn’t take Parise for one reason and one reason only — his size. In hindsight, it was the wrong call, but it was understandable at the time.
    With Mike Comrie, Todd Marchant, Mike York, Brian Swanson (all 5-10 or under), Marty Reasoner and Shawn Horcoff, the Oilers were too soft and way too small down the middle.

    If that's true and the only reason then that's the typical mistake of drafting for need instead of drafting the best player available.

    I mean to teams truly believe that their current roster at the time of a draft will be the same when the drafted player finally reaches the NHL?

  • Hippy

    oilersinsider wrote:

    Robin Brownlee wrote:
    The Oilers didn’t take Parise for one reason and one reason only — his size. In hindsight, it was the wrong call, but it was understandable at the time.
    With Mike Comrie, Todd Marchant, Mike York, Brian Swanson (all 5-10 or under), Marty Reasoner and Shawn Horcoff, the Oilers were too soft and way too small down the middle.
    If that’s true and the only reason then that’s the typical mistake of drafting for need instead of drafting the best player available.
    I mean to teams truly believe that their current roster at the time of a draft will be the same when the drafted player finally reaches the NHL?

    I know, its a ridiculous mindset to have and I'm still shocked teams do this, taking size over skill, now a days. I mean look at the NFL or NBA where often teams take the best player even if they have no intention of signing him or having him play for them, only to trade him for another player in the draft +. Passing an a 5 star player to take a 3 star player with size is nuts. And over the years the Oilers have been some of the worst offenders.

  • Hippy

    DonovanMD wrote:

    Ridiculous comment. Petry/Lucic wasn’t some set in stone, clear cut choice at the time. If you’re going to get all up in arms and demand they be fired for something like that then you could make the same case for every scouting staff in the NHL.

    The only problem is that they did it again this year. At #40 they took Anton Lander, a soft swede. At #41 Nashville took 6'3" 229 lb Zach Budish, who missed the season with a knee injury playing football yet still was projected to go 25-30. Compared to Keith Tkachuk. Why do we take the soft euros instead of big, strong, skilled north americans?

    I'm getting sick of it.

  • Hippy

    James wrote:

    The only problem is that they did it again this year. At #40 they took Anton Lander, a soft swede. At #41 Nashville took 6′3″ 229 lb Zach Budish, who missed the season with a knee injury playing football yet still was projected to go 25-30. Compared to Keith Tkachuk. Why do we take the soft euros instead of big, strong, skilled north americans?
    I’m getting sick of it.

    Nicely said, James. The Oilers are absolutely loaded with sweetie-pie euros and small skilled (supposedly) forwards. With all the talk about needing to up our size and grit quotient why not take the chance on Zach Budish? Because there was no slam-dunk pick here isn't this the time to roll the dice on a big-time, physical, football-playing mentality forward. So when there's not a clear-cut consensus they take the smallish sweetie-pie? Then in the next round get their physical player who is only supposed to be a goon and that's all. Frustrating…

    But, I will say this: the Oilers this year took the clear-cut favorite in the first round who was available and didn't pass him up (thank God). Time will tell but I am soooo much happier when the Oilers just take the best player available (according to nearly all reports outside of the Oilers organization). I just am not happy at all when the Oilers go outside of the norm because time has shown that we have a BRUTAL track record of going AGAINST the established scouting reports of draft prospects. I think we try to get too cute, and think too highly of our own opinions about our draft grades when history has shown we shouldn't. (If you're Detroit or New Jersey, then by all means go with your gut…but when you have a track record as lousy as ours has been over the years you better go get the guy that is the consensus pick!).

  • Hippy

    Darren wrote:

    James wrote:
    The only problem is that they did it again this year. At #40 they took Anton Lander, a soft swede. At #41 Nashville took 6′3″ 229 lb Zach Budish, who missed the season with a knee injury playing football yet still was projected to go 25-30. Compared to Keith Tkachuk. Why do we take the soft euros instead of big, strong, skilled north americans?
    I’m getting sick of it.
    Nicely said, James. The Oilers are absolutely loaded with sweetie-pie euros and small skilled (supposedly) forwards. With all the talk about needing to up our size and grit quotient why not take the chance on Zach Budish? Because there was no slam-dunk pick here isn’t this the time to roll the dice on a big-time, physical, football-playing mentality forward. So when there’s not a clear-cut consensus they take the smallish sweetie-pie? Then in the next round get their physical player who is only supposed to be a goon and that’s all. Frustrating…
    But, I will say this: the Oilers this year took the clear-cut favorite in the first round who was available and didn’t pass him up (thank God). Time will tell but I am soooo much happier when the Oilers just take the best player available (according to nearly all reports outside of the Oilers organization). I just am not happy at all when the Oilers go outside of the norm because time has shown that we have a BRUTAL track record of going AGAINST the established scouting reports of draft prospects. I think we try to get too cute, and think too highly of our own opinions about our draft grades when history has shown we shouldn’t. (If you’re Detroit or New Jersey, then by all means go with your gut…but when you have a track record as lousy as ours has been over the years you better go get the guy that is the consensus pick!).

    So just that I'm clear, you are complaining that they took the bigger guy (MAP) and your also complaining that they took the smaller guy Landon?

  • Hippy

    @ Ogden Brother:

    Darren wrote:

    Because there was no slam-dunk pick here isn’t this the time to roll the dice on a big-time, physical, football-playing mentality forward. So when there’s not a clear-cut consensus they take the smallish sweetie-pie?

    So just that I’m clear, you are complaining that they took the bigger guy (MAP) and your also complaining that they took the smaller guy Landon?

    I will admit the Oilers need to address their deficiency in regards to their size and toughness. Drafting Pouliot did nothing to address that. MAP isn't a "bigger guy" anyway; he may be two inches taller but what difference has that made in his game. Slightly bigger size does not make a player a physical player, and Pouliot was never known as a physical player. Whether Pouliot can be that remains to be seen, but if they drafted him to be that they made a big mistake in my opinion. And if they didn't draft him to be that type of player what difference does the two inches between MAP and Parise really count for besides 60-70 points a year?

    Now I am not down on Anton Lander, not at all. I don't really know that much about him, but what I do know is that nobody was banging the table about him and going on about what type of player he is or will become. I hope he will be a great player. But if you are wanting to address the size issue the time to do so is when you are not risking drafting a potential superstar…and nobody has accused Lander of that so far.

    According to scouting reports Zach Budish has:
    "Serious upside
    Tremendous size, at 6'2, 230 lbs.
    Physical player who intimidates opponents
    Solid skater with soft hands
    High hockey I.Q. – plays well in all 3 zones
    A very strong leader, future captain material"

    I realize that health is a factor with him as his last season was wiped out by a knee injury, and that obviously went into the Oilers's decision, as well as others. But here's a chance to swing for the fences and address a key Oilers need. If it doesn't work out you've given up a second round pick. If it does you've got one hell of a player who can play whatever type of game you want to play.

    As Robin pointed out the Parise fiasco was about size, pure and simple. And this story is about that decision the Oiles made, but I also believe it is about the Oilers' arrogance at the draft table and how that has bitten them on the rear end on many occasions. I know that teams will take the bigger player is everything else is considered tied, so to get bigger players you have to sometimes give the edge to a bigger, more physical player. I get that, and I encourage the Oilers to start doing that considering how far we are behind other teams in that department.

    My entire point is that there is a time to do that, and a time not to do that. The time to do that is when there isn't a big disparity between the players you would get. Zach Parise was heads and shoulders above MAP at the time, and even if they believed there might be somebody else they liked more than MAP available after the trade they took too big a risk on losing out on a franchise player in a franchise player's draft year. A good time would have been this last year's draft when there were a lot of players lumped together separated by not too much in the middle of the first round to the end of the second round. And I'm not dumping on the Oilers's draft this year. I thought they had a good draft overall, everything considered, thanks to some good later round picks, as well as MP-S.

    It's just when it's time to beef up your roster and take a chance on a physical player ahead of more talented smaller players it's better to risk losing an Anton Lander and not a Zach Parise.

    Then again, maybe I just like players named Zach, I don't know.

  • Hippy

    @ Ogden Brother:

    Darren wrote:

    Because there was no slam-dunk pick here isn’t this the time to roll the dice on a big-time, physical, football-playing mentality forward. So when there’s not a clear-cut consensus they take the smallish sweetie-pie?

    Ogden brother wrote:

    So just that I’m clear, you are complaining that they took the bigger guy (MAP) and your also complaining that they took the smaller guy Landon?

    I will admit the Oilers need to address their deficiency in regards to their size and toughness. Drafting Pouliot did nothing to address that. MAP isn't a "bigger guy" anyway; he may be two inches taller but what difference has that made in his game. Slightly bigger size does not make a player a physical player, and Pouliot was never known as a physical player. Whether Pouliot can be that remains to be seen, but if they drafted him to be that they made a big mistake in my opinion. And if they didn't draft him to be that type of player what difference does the two inches between MAP and Parise really count for besides 60-70 points a year?

    Now I am not down on Anton Lander, not at all. I don't really know that much about him, but what I do know is that nobody was banging the table about him and going on about what type of player he is or will become. I hope he will be a great player. But if you are wanting to address the size issue the time to do so is when you are not risking drafting a potential superstar…and nobody has accused Lander of that so far.

    According to scouting reports Zach Budish has:
    "Serious upside
    Tremendous size, at 6'2, 230 lbs.
    Physical player who intimidates opponents
    Solid skater with soft hands
    High hockey I.Q. – plays well in all 3 zones
    A very strong leader, future captain material"

    I realize that health is a factor with him as his last season was wiped out by a knee injury, and that obviously went into the Oilers's decision, as well as others. But here's a chance to swing for the fences and address a key Oilers need. If it doesn't work out you've given up a second round pick. If it does you've got one hell of a player who can play whatever type of game you want to play.

    As Robin pointed out the Parise fiasco was about size, pure and simple. And this story is about that decision the Oiles made, but I also believe it is about the Oilers' arrogance at the draft table and how that has bitten them on the rear end on many occasions. I know that teams will take the bigger player is everything else is considered tied, so to get bigger players you have to sometimes give the edge to a bigger, more physical player. I get that, and I encourage the Oilers to start doing that considering how far we are behind other teams in that department.

    My entire point is that there is a time to do that, and a time not to do that. The time to do that is when there isn't a big disparity between the players you would get. Zach Parise was heads and shoulders above MAP at the time, and even if they believed there might be somebody else they liked more than MAP available after the trade they took too big a risk on losing out on a franchise player in a franchise player's draft year. A good time would have been this last year's draft when there were a lot of players lumped together separated by not too much in the middle of the first round to the end of the second round. And I'm not dumping on the Oilers's draft this year. I thought they had a good draft overall, everything considered, thanks to some good later round picks, as well as MP-S.

    It's just when it's time to beef up your roster and take a chance on a physical player ahead of more talented smaller players it's better to risk losing an Anton Lander and not a Zach Parise.

    Then again, maybe I just like players named Zach, I don't know.

  • Hippy

    Darren wrote:

    @ Ogden Brother:
    Darren wrote:
    Because there was no slam-dunk pick here isn’t this the time to roll the dice on a big-time, physical, football-playing mentality forward. So when there’s not a clear-cut consensus they take the smallish sweetie-pie?
    Ogden brother wrote:
    So just that I’m clear, you are complaining that they took the bigger guy (MAP) and your also complaining that they took the smaller guy Landon?
    I will admit the Oilers need to address their deficiency in regards to their size and toughness. Drafting Pouliot did nothing to address that. MAP isn’t a “bigger guy” anyway; he may be two inches taller but what difference has that made in his game. Slightly bigger size does not make a player a physical player, and Pouliot was never known as a physical player. Whether Pouliot can be that remains to be seen, but if they drafted him to be that they made a big mistake in my opinion. And if they didn’t draft him to be that type of player what difference does the two inches between MAP and Parise really count for besides 60-70 points a year?
    Now I am not down on Anton Lander, not at all. I don’t really know that much about him, but what I do know is that nobody was banging the table about him and going on about what type of player he is or will become. I hope he will be a great player. But if you are wanting to address the size issue the time to do so is when you are not risking drafting a potential superstar…and nobody has accused Lander of that so far.
    According to scouting reports Zach Budish has:
    “Serious upside
    Tremendous size, at 6′2, 230 lbs.
    Physical player who intimidates opponents
    Solid skater with soft hands
    High hockey I.Q. – plays well in all 3 zones
    A very strong leader, future captain material”
    I realize that health is a factor with him as his last season was wiped out by a knee injury, and that obviously went into the Oilers’s decision, as well as others. But here’s a chance to swing for the fences and address a key Oilers need. If it doesn’t work out you’ve given up a second round pick. If it does you’ve got one hell of a player who can play whatever type of game you want to play.
    As Robin pointed out the Parise fiasco was about size, pure and simple. And this story is about that decision the Oiles made, but I also believe it is about the Oilers’ arrogance at the draft table and how that has bitten them on the rear end on many occasions. I know that teams will take the bigger player is everything else is considered tied, so to get bigger players you have to sometimes give the edge to a bigger, more physical player. I get that, and I encourage the Oilers to start doing that considering how far we are behind other teams in that department.
    My entire point is that there is a time to do that, and a time not to do that. The time to do that is when there isn’t a big disparity between the players you would get. Zach Parise was heads and shoulders above MAP at the time, and even if they believed there might be somebody else they liked more than MAP available after the trade they took too big a risk on losing out on a franchise player in a franchise player’s draft year. A good time would have been this last year’s draft when there were a lot of players lumped together separated by not too much in the middle of the first round to the end of the second round. And I’m not dumping on the Oilers’s draft this year. I thought they had a good draft overall, everything considered, thanks to some good later round picks, as well as MP-S.
    It’s just when it’s time to beef up your roster and take a chance on a physical player ahead of more talented smaller players it’s better to risk losing an Anton Lander and not a Zach Parise.
    Then again, maybe I just like players named Zach, I don’t know.

    Where do you get the idea that Parise was way ahead of MAP at the time? Mckenzie had MAP at 13 from the video above and SI had Parise at 9 and MAP at 13.

  • Hippy

    Is their a reason we can't post links?

    Here's the finail CS rating for 2003

    1. Eric Staal, c, Peterborough (OHL)

    2. Dustin Brown, rw, Guelph (OHL)

    3. Thomas Vanek, lw, Minnesota (WCHA)

    4. Nathan Horton, c, Oshawa (OHL)

    5. Ryan Getzlaf, c, Calgary (WHL)

    6. Braydon Coburn, d, Portland (WHL)

    7. Ryan Suter, d, U.S. National Team

    8. Dion Phaneuf, d, Red Deer (WHL)

    9. Zach Parise, c, North Dakota (WCHA)

    10. Dan Fritsche, c, Sarnia (OHL)

    11. Steve Bernier, rw, Moncton (QMJHL)

    12. Ryan Stone, c, Brandon (WHL)

    13. Marc-Antoine Pouliot, c, Rimouski (QMJHL)

    14. Patrick O'Sullivan, c, Mississauga (OHL)

    15. Eric Fehr, rw, Brandon (WHL)

    16. Ryan Kesler, c, Ohio State (CCHA)

    17. Mark Stuart, d, Colorado College (WCHA)

    18. Kevin Klein, d, Toronto St. Michael's (OHL)

    19. Anthony Stewart, c-rw, Kingston (OHL)

    20. Hugh Jessiman, rw, Dartmouth (ECAC)

    21. Jeff Tambellini, lw, Michigan (CCHA)

    22. Kamil Kreps, c, Brampton (OHL)

    23. Maxim Lapierre, c, Montreal (QMJHL)

    24. Jonathan Filewich, rw, Prince George (WHL)

    25. Brent Seabrook, d, Lethbridge (WHL)

    26. Marc-Andre Bernier, rw, Halifax (QMJHL)

    27. Jeff Carter, c, Sault Ste. Marie, (OHL)

    28. Patrice Bergeron, c, Acadie-Bathurst (QMJHL)

    29. Joshua Hennessy, c, Quebec (QMJHL)

    30. Mike Richards, c, Kitchener (OHL)

    To all the critics of the draft pick: Pretty weak.

  • Hippy

    Guess that's just for NA players, here's Europe:

    1. Nikolai Zherdev, lw, CSKA (Russia)

    2. Milan Michalek, rw, Budejovice (Czech)

    3. Andrei Kostitsyn, w, CSKA (Russia)

    4. Dimitri Chernikh, rw, Khimik (Russia)

    5. Konstantin Glazachev, lw, Yaroslavl 2 (Russia)

    6. Igor Mirnov, rw, Dynamo (Russia)

    7. Grigory Shafigulin, c, Yaroslavl (Russia)

    8. Evegeny Tunik, c, Elektrostal (Russia)

    9. Robert Nilsson, c-w, Leksand (Sweden)

    10. Michal Barinka, d, Budejovice (Czech)

    11. Dimitri Kosmachev, d, CSKA (Russia)

    12. Vojtech Polak, w, Karlovy Vary (Czech)

    13. Evgeni Isakov, lw, Cherepovets (Russia)

    14. Konstantin Volkov, rw, Dynamo Jr. (Russia)

    15. Ruslan Khasanshin, rw, Samara (Russia)

    16. Stefan Ruzicka, rw, Nitra (Slovakia)

    17. Tim Ramholt, d, Zurich (Swiss)

    18. Ivan Baranka, d, Dubnica (Slovakia)

    19. Stefan Blaho, rw, Trencin (Slovkia)

    20. Konstantin Zakharov, w, Junost Minsk (Belarus)

    21. Denis Ezhov, d, Togliatti (Russia)

    22. Ivan Khomutov, c, Elektrostal (Russia)

    23. Liam Lindstrom, c, Mora (Sweden)

    24. Alexander Sulzer, d, Hamburg (Germany)

    25. Kevin Romy, w, Geneve (Swiss

  • Hippy

    @ Ogden Brother:

    Weak, not if you read what they actually said about the players instead of just the number the players were rated at. Just because a player is rated closely behind another player doesn't mean they are anywhere close to that player above him.

    By your reasoning trading down from Sidney Crosby's draft slot and getting the next rated player at the time, who was Benoit Pouliot, would have been reasonable to pick up another draft pick.

    That's fine if you don't agree with me on this point because I sure don't agree with you, but to call my argument or anyone else's argument weak because the two were rated closely by draft ranking numbers is (I hate to say it) pretty weak in itself.

  • Hippy

    J.W. – Nice story, even if I don't agree with your take on it. 😉
    I think it is awesome for you to do the groundwork and dig up that footage and run with it. Hey, it gives us something to think about, and discuss during the summer…even if it is a painful, awful memory – lol!

  • Hippy

    Darren wrote:

    @ Ogden Brother:
    Weak, not if you read what they actually said about the players instead of just the number the players were rated at. Just because a player is rated closely behind another player doesn’t mean they are anywhere close to that player above him.
    By your reasoning trading down from Sidney Crosby’s draft slot and getting the next rated player at the time, who was Benoit Pouliot, would have been reasonable to pick up another draft pick.
    That’s fine if you don’t agree with me on this point because I sure don’t agree with you, but to call my argument or anyone else’s argument weak because the two were rated closely by draft ranking numbers is (I hate to say it) pretty weak in itself.

    17 wansn't Parise's "spot" NJ just happend to draft him their, also any pick at 17 is far from a sure thing.

    I mean why aren't we mad they didn't draft Getzlaf?? He was rated far ahead of Parise and he was still on board. It's laughble that everyone is hung up on Parise, the Oil (along with alot of teams) past on a pile of top end players in that first round Getzlaf/Burns/Perry/Richards are all high end players that went latter then 17… it's the way it works. The draft is a crap shoot.

  • Hippy

    Darren wrote:

    @ Ogden Brother:
    Weak, not if you read what they actually said about the players instead of just the number the players were rated at. Just because a player is rated closely behind another player doesn’t mean they are anywhere close to that player above him.
    By your reasoning trading down from Sidney Crosby’s draft slot and getting the next rated player at the time, who was Benoit Pouliot, would have been reasonable to pick up another draft pick.
    That’s fine if you don’t agree with me on this point because I sure don’t agree with you, but to call my argument or anyone else’s argument weak because the two were rated closely by draft ranking numbers is (I hate to say it) pretty weak in itself.

    I read what they said about him (or what you listed I guess) that doesn't prove anything, of course they said nice things about him, that's what scouting reports (for top end players) do.