2021 NHL Entry Draft

[Nucker 67]

I'm not sure some players make it to #9, like Power, Beniers, Eklund, Clarke, and McTavish.  Unfortunate, because any one of those player would be a really great addition to the future roster.

 

Good chance then, VAN could end up with Hughes, Guenther, Johnson or Edvinsson.  

 

I recall in 2017 though, when Benning took Pettersson, I was flabbergasted.  What?! He passed on Glass and Vilardi?!  But in hindsite - Whew! Good thing he knows what he's doing.

 

Maybe something similar happens again?  I keep imagining various players being taken by VAN, but it always comes back to Lysell. That just feels like a VAN pick. I'll throw my hands in the air, moaning in frustration, but maybe a few years down the road, a Lysell - Pettersson - Boeser line could be deadly.  Who knows, we all have our favourites. Lysell is not one of mine, but I'm not a pro scout, so lots of big guesses.

[HighOnHockey]

22 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Today, if you look around the league, there are a few teams that are rebuilding the right way

 

Colorado.................a long methodical and precise rebuild

Carolina..................a focused and methodical rebuild

Edmonton...............a team that got lucky, still could not win and finally started a proper rebuild of their prospects and defense

NYR........................Lucky, but methodical...........take a look at their RHD

N Jersey.................early stages, a little scattered, but going in the right direction

LA........................... their collection of young talent is awesome....very young

Anaheim..................just starting, but appears methodical

 

The collection of high draft picks is not only to add to your team, but also to be used as currency. Even Benning showed why this works with Taffoli, and on the reverse side, LA did this as well in the same deal.

 

There is no doubt that Taffoli was a fan favorite in LA, but LA moved him because it was best for the franchise, It did several things, when the trade happened, first it brought in instant asset in the form of Madden and the 2nd, but it also weakened LA, which allowed them to drop in the standings. Colorado did this as well back when they moved Duchene, as well. The return asset, helped them rebuild quicker.

 

There is no doubt there are different ways to rebuild, but successful ones, liquidate and drop, then rebuild, with good drafting and good trades. I do not appreciate being called a loser, because I see it this way. Especially when, there are NHL models out there, that show exactly that.

 

I respond to this because, the truth is, that if some veterans had been moved earlier, we would have more assets to work with now, and it was Benning's lack of imagination and his POV, that prevented that. And no, I do not believe the few wins  that we got, that we would not, built character, that is a fools POV. 

 

IMO, if we had that extra asset that would have been recovered, we would have been in a much better position, to A) go out and do a hockey trade for a young defenseman

B ) might already have one, or C) would have dropped low enough to make that pick ourselves.

 

Yes, there are always examples of teams that do it and do not succeed (early Edmonton and Toronto), but in those cases, it had more to do with scouting staff, not identifying the proper draft targets.

 

It is not to have a team of all young prospects floundering around, but a cohesive plan that allows for transition and movement of assets, where a GM take asset and acquires needed pieces as required, but coming out of the rebuild too early causes the rebuild to stall, and impatient teams stall never getting to the top.

 

The word "Tank" is a word used by ignorant hockey fans that do not know the history of hockey, nor how dynasties were done. They are never done with just, draft picks, but rather a GM that makes shrewd trades, when the time is right, to supplement those young picks (aka Stars)........"Supplement" !

 

Now, the reason I am going off, is simple. Far too often people use the Tank to take jabs at other, but are never ones to take the stand, and say how they would do it. Nor will they ever admit that it is done in the NHL...........not by players, and not by coaches, but by GM's who play chess, not checkers

 

So, to get on point here............the Canucks are short assets to really have a long stay at the top, and need to acquire players that will impact the team.  They need a #1/#2 RHD, and a 3rd line Center who can play up. They need depth, and until they get that, they may climb up to a top 12 team, but they won't go further>>>>IMO.

 

So, however Benning does it, it is too late to look back and use what ifs, that is gone. We need to clear cap for "IMPACT" UFA's and to resign assets over the next 2 years. And IMO, the year we could use the Strategic Tank, are gone, so don't bring it up any more, not to jab at others, nor say it is not used.

 

As I have said many times, players play in the moment, coaches coach for the season, and GM's should be GMing in the long haul. Those that don't usually don't last.

 

17 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Its funny how many on CDC who advocate rebuilding also loved acquiring Tofolli. And criticize letting him go. 

 

It is pretty obvious that JB has never been a rebuilder.  Whether that is his own mandate, or the owners, is debatable? That we have not been sellers often undeniable. FTR I would have been an advocate for selling 2, 4 & even 6 years ago.  Right now, at this minute sell?

 

This year I think we just let Podkolzin, with some luck Lind, Rathbone arrive. Ask for growth from Hogz / Petey / Quinn. Find a RHD and tinker with the bottom 6.  Next summer we will have all kinds of flexibility to add key pieces to the roster.

 

I dont really want to talk about selling.  The time to move Schmidt, for example, if there was one would be next deadline. And it will still be unlikely Benning will have any mandate, or impetus to sell.  

 

 

Who do you like with our 2knd; will Scott Morrow be there?

 

You've got it Surfer. Just for a little context, I grew up a Canucks fan in northern BC, but since I moved to another province in my early teens, somehow became a diehard Sens fan and have only followed Canucks peripherally until I moved to the Island last year just in time for the playoff run. But the point is, even as someone who wasn't watching all that closely, it was abundantly clear from very early on what the plan under the Benning administration would be: a slow, meticulous rebuild. Theseus' ship replaced one board at a time, and nothing like a rip-off-the-bandaid, scorched earth approach the Sens would soon take.

 

I guess the crucial point I want to emphasize is, rebuilding isn't something teams want or even need to do, it is something that just happens. It is the natural cycle of the reverse-standings draft system, consolidated by the salary cap. Of course every team has to have a strategy for how to handle it when it comes, and can either try to get in front of it and speed it along or can try to delay and drag it out. There are many different ways to go about it each with a myriad various implications. I have my own opinions, but every team's situation is very different and of course there isn't one thing that works for situation. One thing I think it is important to recognize Jan, is that there are at least two separate phases of rebuilding: the tear-down and then the rebuild. What you seem to advocate for a quick, drastic tear-down, but then a slow-meticulous rebuild. But what the Canucks have been doing under Benning has been slow and meticulous through both phases. I would tend to, on average (again, it depends on every team's situation) advocate for a slow, meticulous tear-down, and then a quick rebuild.

 

But the only team that really won a Cup in the past decade with my style would be the L.A. Kings. The benefit to this method is that, provided you draft well through the early phase (as L.A. did indeed) then by the time you get to the really lean years and high picks, you already have a core of prospects almost ready to go (Dustin Brown, Kopitar, Quick), and then you make some high picks and with a few shrewd trades and signings, it is a relatively painless process that is conducive to a winning atmosphere. I mean this is the dream scenario for fans, owners and players alike, but the key is that the drafting in that early phase is absolutely crucial, and L.A. nailed it.

 

Pittsburgh went scorched earth on the descent and blazing phoenix on the ascent. They have three Cups to show for it, but they also got incredibly lucky at the draft, and their fans suffered through some really rough years. It is hard to say what Chicago did, as they simply just failed on their initial rebuild attempt and had to start over, thus essentially drawing out the tear-down phase for the better part of a decade, similar to what happened to Edmonton recently. Can Edmonton be the next Chicago? Hopefully, I like the Oilers, but both fanbases suffered through hell to get there. Washington was a quick, rip-off-the-bandaid tear down followed by a pretty quick rebuild to being competitive (ok, maybe this is the dream scenario, but good luck with that unless you get Alex Ovechkin), but then it was still a long, windy road to actually winning the Cup.

 

St. Louis' tear-down was punctuated by the 2005 lockout year, but they went the long, slow road in both directions. St. Louis is the closest path to have won a Cup lately to the one the Canucks have been on. They actually did try to be quite aggressive on the ascent, trading first rounders for Bouwmeester, Shattenkirk, but unfortunately,it still wasn't enough, and they ended up having to (or deciding to) trade heart-and-soul captain David Backes and fan-favorite T.J. Oshie during their retooling in 2016. The Canucks still have a few years to go before they get to the point of trading Horvat, but at least we have a decent model to look at in St. Louis. Canucks are about where the Blues were around 2011 or 2012 - most of the drafted core in the lineup and taking the reigns from the veterans. Similarly, the Canucks will have about a five year window with Horvat and Demko. But St. Louis also shows us that you don't need to win in that window, but if not, you'll likely want to move those guys out to make cap space for the next wave.

Edited June 30, 2021 by HighOnHockey

[Putgolzin]

19 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

You've got it Surfer. Just for a little context, I grew up a Canucks fan in northern BC, but since I moved to another province in my early teens, somehow became a diehard Sens fan and have only followed Canucks peripherally until I moved to the Island last year just in time for the playoff run. But the point is, even as someone who wasn't watching all that closely, it was abundantly clear from very early on what the plan under the Benning administration would be: a slow, meticulous rebuild. Theseus' ship replaced one board at a time, and nothing like a rip-off-the-bandaid, scorched earth approach the Sens would soon take.

 

I guess the crucial point I want to emphasize is, rebuilding isn't something teams want or even need to do, it is something that just happens. It is the natural cycle of the reverse-standings draft system, consolidated by the salary cap. Of course every team has to have a strategy for how to handle it when it comes, and can either try to get in front of it and speed it along or can try to delay and drag it out. There are many different ways to go about it each with a myriad various implications. I have my own opinions, but every team's situation is very different and of course there isn't one thing that works for situation. One thing I think it is important to recognize Jan, is that there are at least two separate phases of rebuilding: the tear-down and then the rebuild. What you seem to advocate for a quick, drastic tear-down, but then a slow-meticulous rebuild. But what the Canucks have been doing under Benning has been slow and meticulous through both phases. I would tend to, on average (again, it depends on every team's situation) advocate for a slow, meticulous tear-down, and then a quick rebuild.

 

But the only team that really won a Cup in the past decade with my style would be the L.A. Kings. The benefit to this method is that, provided you draft well through the early phase (as L.A. did indeed) then by the time you get to the really lean years and high picks, you already have a core of prospects almost ready to go (Dustin Brown, Kopitar, Quick), and then you make some high picks and with a few shrewd trades and signings, it is a relatively painless process that is conducive to a winning atmosphere. I mean this is the dream scenario for fans, owners and players alike, but the key is that the drafting in that early phase is absolutely crucial, and L.A. nailed it.

 

Pittsburgh went scorched earth on the descent and blazing phoenix on the ascent. They have three Cups to show for it, but they also got incredibly lucky at the draft, and their fans suffered through some really rough years. It is hard to say what Chicago did, as they simply just failed on their initial rebuild attempt and had to start over, thus essentially drawing out the tear-down phase for the better part of a decade, similar to what happened to Edmonton recently. Can Edmonton be the next Chicago? Hopefully, I like the Oilers, but both fanbases suffered through hell to get there. Washington was a quick, rip-off-the-bandaid tear down followed by a pretty quick rebuild to being competitive (ok, maybe this is the dream scenario, but good luck with that unless you get Alex Ovechkin), but then it was still a long, windy road to actually winning the Cup.

 

St. Louis' tear-down was punctuated by the 2005 lockout year, but they went the long, slow road in both directions. St. Louis is the closest path to have won a Cup lately to the one the Canucks have been on. They actually did try to be quite aggressive on the ascent, trading first rounders for Bouwmeester, Shattenkirk, but unfortunately,it still wasn't enough, and they ended up having to (or deciding to) trade heart-and-soul captain David Backes and fan-favorite T.J. Oshie during their retooling in 2016. The Canucks still have a few years to go before they get to the point of trading Horvat, but at least we have a decent model to look at in St. Louis. Canucks are about where the Blues were around 2011 or 2012 - most of the drafted core in the lineup and taking the reigns from the veterans. Similarly, the Canucks will have about a five year window with Horvat and Demko. But St. Louis also shows us that you don't need to win in that window, but if not, you'll likely want to move those guys out to make cap space for the next wave.

Northern BC? Whereabouts?

[86Viking]

45 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

 

I recall in 2017 though, when Benning took Pettersson, I was flabbergasted.  What?! He passed on Glass and Vilardi?!  But in hindsite - Whew! Good thing he knows what he's doing.

 

I don't think enough credit is given to scouts sometimes, especially in this case. Gradin has been a longtime scout for us and has had heavy influence over many of our picks, especially all them Swedes!

[HighOnHockey]

6 minutes ago, nzan said:

Northern BC? Whereabouts?

Lol, that's what you wanna talk about?! There's so many interesting points to debate about rebuild strategies!

 

Little coal-mining town called Tumbler Ridge.

[JM_]

6 hours ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

Yes but likely seattle take holtby and trade him to boston

that would be great for us if it went down that way 

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

28 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

You've got it Surfer. Just for a little context, I grew up a Canucks fan in northern BC, but since I moved to another province in my early teens, somehow became a diehard Sens fan and have only followed Canucks peripherally until I moved to the Island last year just in time for the playoff run. But the point is, even as someone who wasn't watching all that closely, it was abundantly clear from very early on what the plan under the Benning administration would be: a slow, meticulous rebuild. Theseus' ship replaced one board at a time, and nothing like a rip-off-the-bandaid, scorched earth approach the Sens would soon take.

 

I guess the crucial point I want to emphasize is, rebuilding isn't something teams want or even need to do, it is something that just happens. It is the natural cycle of the reverse-standings draft system, consolidated by the salary cap. Of course every team has to have a strategy for how to handle it when it comes, and can either try to get in front of it and speed it along or can try to delay and drag it out. There are many different ways to go about it each with a myriad various implications. I have my own opinions, but every team's situation is very different and of course there isn't one thing that works for situation. One thing I think it is important to recognize Jan, is that there are at least two separate phases of rebuilding: the tear-down and then the rebuild. What you seem to advocate for a quick, drastic tear-down, but then a slow-meticulous rebuild. But what the Canucks have been doing under Benning has been slow and meticulous through both phases. I would tend to, on average (again, it depends on every team's situation) advocate for a slow, meticulous tear-down, and then a quick rebuild.

 

But the only team that really won a Cup in the past decade with my style would be the L.A. Kings. The benefit to this method is that, provided you draft well through the early phase (as L.A. did indeed) then by the time you get to the really lean years and high picks, you already have a core of prospects almost ready to go (Dustin Brown, Kopitar, Quick), and then you make some high picks and with a few shrewd trades and signings, it is a relatively painless process that is conducive to a winning atmosphere. I mean this is the dream scenario for fans, owners and players alike, but the key is that the drafting in that early phase is absolutely crucial, and L.A. nailed it.

 

Pittsburgh went scorched earth on the descent and blazing phoenix on the ascent. They have three Cups to show for it, but they also got incredibly lucky at the draft, and their fans suffered through some really rough years. It is hard to say what Chicago did, as they simply just failed on their initial rebuild attempt and had to start over, thus essentially drawing out the tear-down phase for the better part of a decade, similar to what happened to Edmonton recently. Can Edmonton be the next Chicago? Hopefully, I like the Oilers, but both fanbases suffered through hell to get there. Washington was a quick, rip-off-the-bandaid tear down followed by a pretty quick rebuild to being competitive (ok, maybe this is the dream scenario, but good luck with that unless you get Alex Ovechkin), but then it was still a long, windy road to actually winning the Cup.

 

St. Louis' tear-down was punctuated by the 2005 lockout year, but they went the long, slow road in both directions. St. Louis is the closest path to have won a Cup lately to the one the Canucks have been on. They actually did try to be quite aggressive on the ascent, trading first rounders for Bouwmeester, Shattenkirk, but unfortunately,it still wasn't enough, and they ended up having to (or deciding to) trade heart-and-soul captain David Backes and fan-favorite T.J. Oshie during their retooling in 2016. The Canucks still have a few years to go before they get to the point of trading Horvat, but at least we have a decent model to look at in St. Louis. Canucks are about where the Blues were around 2011 or 2012 - most of the drafted core in the lineup and taking the reigns from the veterans. Similarly, the Canucks will have about a five year window with Horvat and Demko. But St. Louis also shows us that you don't need to win in that window, but if not, you'll likely want to move those guys out to make cap space for the next wave.

Worst decision = going from Canucks fan to Senators fan

 

Best decision = moving from northern BC and Ottawa to the Vancouver Island

[Sp3nny]

2 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

You've got it Surfer. Just for a little context, I grew up a Canucks fan in northern BC, but since I moved to another province in my early teens, somehow became a diehard Sens fan and have only followed Canucks peripherally until I moved to the Island last year just in time for the playoff run. But the point is, even as someone who wasn't watching all that closely, it was abundantly clear from very early on what the plan under the Benning administration would be: a slow, meticulous rebuild. Theseus' ship replaced one board at a time, and nothing like a rip-off-the-bandaid, scorched earth approach the Sens would soon take.

 

I guess the crucial point I want to emphasize is, rebuilding isn't something teams want or even need to do, it is something that just happens. It is the natural cycle of the reverse-standings draft system, consolidated by the salary cap. Of course every team has to have a strategy for how to handle it when it comes, and can either try to get in front of it and speed it along or can try to delay and drag it out. There are many different ways to go about it each with a myriad various implications. I have my own opinions, but every team's situation is very different and of course there isn't one thing that works for situation. One thing I think it is important to recognize Jan, is that there are at least two separate phases of rebuilding: the tear-down and then the rebuild. What you seem to advocate for a quick, drastic tear-down, but then a slow-meticulous rebuild. But what the Canucks have been doing under Benning has been slow and meticulous through both phases. I would tend to, on average (again, it depends on every team's situation) advocate for a slow, meticulous tear-down, and then a quick rebuild.

 

But the only team that really won a Cup in the past decade with my style would be the L.A. Kings. The benefit to this method is that, provided you draft well through the early phase (as L.A. did indeed) then by the time you get to the really lean years and high picks, you already have a core of prospects almost ready to go (Dustin Brown, Kopitar, Quick), and then you make some high picks and with a few shrewd trades and signings, it is a relatively painless process that is conducive to a winning atmosphere. I mean this is the dream scenario for fans, owners and players alike, but the key is that the drafting in that early phase is absolutely crucial, and L.A. nailed it.

 

Pittsburgh went scorched earth on the descent and blazing phoenix on the ascent. They have three Cups to show for it, but they also got incredibly lucky at the draft, and their fans suffered through some really rough years. It is hard to say what Chicago did, as they simply just failed on their initial rebuild attempt and had to start over, thus essentially drawing out the tear-down phase for the better part of a decade, similar to what happened to Edmonton recently. Can Edmonton be the next Chicago? Hopefully, I like the Oilers, but both fanbases suffered through hell to get there. Washington was a quick, rip-off-the-bandaid tear down followed by a pretty quick rebuild to being competitive (ok, maybe this is the dream scenario, but good luck with that unless you get Alex Ovechkin), but then it was still a long, windy road to actually winning the Cup.

 

St. Louis' tear-down was punctuated by the 2005 lockout year, but they went the long, slow road in both directions. St. Louis is the closest path to have won a Cup lately to the one the Canucks have been on. They actually did try to be quite aggressive on the ascent, trading first rounders for Bouwmeester, Shattenkirk, but unfortunately,it still wasn't enough, and they ended up having to (or deciding to) trade heart-and-soul captain David Backes and fan-favorite T.J. Oshie during their retooling in 2016. The Canucks still have a few years to go before they get to the point of trading Horvat, but at least we have a decent model to look at in St. Louis. Canucks are about where the Blues were around 2011 or 2012 - most of the drafted core in the lineup and taking the reigns from the veterans. Similarly, the Canucks will have about a five year window with Horvat and Demko. But St. Louis also shows us that you don't need to win in that window, but if not, you'll likely want to move those guys out to make cap space for the next wave.

I think the biggest thing I take from the recently successful teams, is that they weren't scared to make trades.

 

Chicago sent out Saad, Byfuglien, Wisniewski, Barker, Versteeg, Ladd, Campbell, Brouwer, etc.

 

LA moved Cammalleri, Visnovsky, O'Sullivan, Boyle, Purcell, Schenn, Simmonds, Johnson etc.

 

Pittsburgh moved Whitney, Goligoski, Kapanen, Staal, Sutter etc.

 

We're all of these trades home runs? No. But some provided very valuable pieces back to keep their cap down and core intact. Some of these players were sold even when they looked like great players (Whitney, Schenn, Johnson, Byfuglien) but the GM obviously discerned that they were secondary pieces to their current core, or didn't fit the timeline of their expected window, and took advantage of their value in trade.

 

These are obviously difficult decisions to make, but I hate watching a valuable asset just depreciate into nothing, and either be let go in FA, or just become valueless as they age out, either of which means value going unused or disappearing.

 

Look at the Whitney trade, it would be like trading Hughes right now, but bringing in a solid defenseman and a 40 goal scorer. Normally I say the team that gets the best player wins (Whitney), but in this case, shoring up your roster was such a great move by Pittsburgh. They used cheaper value players to insulate their core, while moving out those exact same type of players from their roster who had earned raises.

 

I think a team like Pittsburgh perfectly shows the value of drafting (and getting lucky at the draft), but also not blowing everything up if you miss the playoffs or have a bad season. Instead of rebuilding, they retool on the fly. It will be very interesting to see what they do in the coming years, as now they are essentially the Canucks in 2012. Will they keep their 'twins' in Crosby and Malkin? Will they keep their 'Edler' in Letang?

 

In real life, this is very difficult to do as a GM. I think this is what Benning was trying to do when he brought in early 20's, already developed players, who he thought could provide that same type of value for the Canucks. But the targets he picked (Vey, Gudbranson etc) just weren't of the quality we needed. And also, our core (Kesler, Sedins) just wasn't as good as we hoped, as they peaked a bit later than we expected, so they were already on the downhill slide. It was a worthy effort, but not the right situation to do it in hindsight.

 

There's more that could be added here, but I feel I've rambled enough lol. I like this discussion though.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Sp3nny

[Gawdzukes]

2 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

Lol, that's what you wanna talk about?! There's so many interesting points to debate about rebuild strategies!

 

Little coal-mining town called Tumbler Ridge.

Good points, you also have to be adaptable during a rebuild. You don't just put one plan in place you have several over-lapping strategies. If one takes off on the other say the emergence of Petey, Quinn, and Hogs you adjust your plan on the fly. So many people criticize moves a GM makes but it's those rare ones that pay off in a cup like Carter and Richards with the Kings. Imagine the Kings don't squeak in that year and they blow up the team. Those trades would have looked horrible.

[Guest]

Can we please not talk about the Pittsburgh model?  
 

Getting lucky in the generational lottery is not a strategy.  I’ll pull out the old Burkie clip again if I have to! 

[Sp3nny]

25 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Can we please not talk about the Pittsburgh model?  
 

Getting lucky in the generational lottery is not a strategy.  I’ll pull out the old Burkie clip again if I have to! 

Do you think Crosby is the sole reason they bring home three cups in the last 12 years? As we are seeing with McDavid, success is earned by the team, not the player.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Sp3nny said:

Do you think Crosby is the sole reason they bring home three cups in the last 12 years? As we are seeing with McDavid, success is earned by the team, not the player.

 

[Sp3nny]

22 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

 

I agree that they got lucky through the draft, but I don't agree that's the sole reason they won.

 

I guess Stanley Cup winning rosters are only impressive when they don't have a 1st overall pick.

[Nucker 67]

Seeing as this Draft is all over the place and determining what the BPAs are is more personal opinion, if Benning could trade down for an extra pick that would be fantastic. 

 

Ceulemans, for example, may go mid to late 1st, but he could turn out to be the 2nd or 3rd best Dman in the Draft!  Same with Raty, he kind of fell down the draft rankings a bit, but he could become an excellent NHL payer one day.  He'll also go mid or late 1st, maybe even get to the 2nd round. There will be some gems in the 2nd anyway.

 

They could potentially walk away with Ceulemans, Raty and Morrow in the first two rounds. Nice haul. 

 

 

[Gawdzukes]

42 minutes ago, Sp3nny said:

Do you think Crosby is the sole reason they bring home three cups in the last 12 years? As we are seeing with McDavid, success is earned by the team, not the player.

 

38 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

 

Ummm didn't they luck out twice and get Malkin #2 overall too?

[Isam]

6 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

Ummm didn't they luck out twice and get Malkin #2 overall too?

Three times. Fleury was alright. 4 if you count the absolute steal in letang

[Bertuzzipunch]

14 minutes ago, Isam said:

Three times. Fleury was alright. 4 if you count the absolute steal in letang

Jordan staal was number 2 overall for pitts as well

[Isam]

Back to propects. Still love jake martin. I think his upside is better then schmidts and he is be seriously undervalued. 

[Isam]

For those interested in smith. They can rejoice a little bit cuz he committed to kitchener

[Isam]

Schmidt ^. Lol