I'm far from an expert but Forsberg sounds like he could be a player. Isles would have to wait for him though from what I hear.
- ses111

He sounds like the gamble of the draft. My feelings are we've gambled enough. If they are going to do that trade it for an established player, just my two cents.

I thought that said takes shirts off

If you have the time (and the interest) I'd take it and read the article I'll link to for probably the most extensive coverage on Grigorenko you'll find. Literally everything about his game gets addressed. The article is long, so if you want to skip to the part about laziness, character, etc... it starts in the 6th paragraph down and gets covered really well.

http://hockeyprospectus.c...rticle.php?articleid=1333
- eichiefs9

VG article. You know. The more I read about these kids. The more I get.

I've seen Grigorenko ranked # 3 by Central Scouting #4 By ISS and ranked in the teens by some others.

11 days we'll get our answer.

Can an appearance on "America's Idol" be in the near future?
- SCLI

been there, done that

XxNYIxX

He sounds like the gamble of the draft. My feelings are we've gambled enough. If they are going to do that trade it for an established player, just my two cents.
- Cptmjl

I'll also take an established hopefully impact player. I may have fallen in love with the Forsberg name even though there is no relation.

VG article. You know. The more I read about these kids. The more I get.

I've seen Grigorenko ranked # 3 by Central Scouting #4 By ISS and ranked in the teens by some others.

11 days we'll get our answer.
- SCLI

More from Pronman on the difference between Yakupov/Grigorenko and why he ranked Yakupov #1 and Grigorenko #2:

Getting to the decision, though, the major argument that could have vaulted Grigorenko ahead of Yakupov is his hockey sense. While Yakupov is no slouch in that department, and in fact his sense is high end, Grigorenko has elite sense and that is a major difference between them. Their puck skills are both great but I would say Yakupov's are notably better; however, I would still say that overall in terms of puck possession skills, Grigorenko's got the edge. So the major arguments for Yakupov over Grigorenko are his skating and shot, which are better to the same degree to which Grigorenko's sense is better than Yakupov's. In terms of determining forward value, I consider hockey sense notably more valuable than skating—which is very important as well—however, while Grigorenko skates well, Yakupov is arguably elite in that area, so the slight possession separation Grigorenko had in my opinion gets nullified by Yakupov's off the charts skating. At this point, I was basically flipping a coin between the two, so things like finishing, physical game, and intangibles would make up the difference. Yakupov's finishing ability is a major argument in his favor because he has an elite shot and while Grigorenko is a good shooter, like with the skating gap, the degree of Yakupov's ability in that area created clear separation. In a possession-driven league, where finishing ability is hard to predict due to lack of persistence, I approach finishing ability with some caution because it is very hard to project even if on a scouting level in Junior it is very apparent. However, in Yakupov's case, I would be very surprised if he wasn't a true-talent high-end finisher in the pros. Bringing the physical game into the equation, you have a 5'11" forward who is very physical and a 6'3" forward who isn't a null factor but not that physical, so in my view it cancels each other out somewhat when it comes to abilities in board battles and overall physical game ability. There's also the much-asked intangibles question on Grigorenko; my answer is that while he doesn't go all-out every shift, he does not have an intangibles issue in the major sense. He does not have the energy of Yakupov, but he doesn't take games off. His style of game can sometimes come off as lazy, but he's really just a cerebral player and he does commit himself to his defense and will win some board battles. While many bring up his poor CHL playoffs where he seemed extremely lazy, I am under the impression he was playing hurt (and it was also recently reported he was suffering from mono), and in a neutral context over the long term based on the lengthy time I've been following him, I do not feel that is an accurate representation of Grigorenko's effort level. The fact Grigorenko is not that tough is taken into account in the aforementioned physical game arguments, but he's not the kind of player who doesn't backcheck or anything. I see the issue as a minor one, but at the same time we have a player in Grigorenko who even aside from that, has come out marginally behind in head-to-head comparisons skillset-wise, plays center as opposed to wing, and his raw upside is a notch higher due to his elite level possession skills/hockey sense. I have minor arguments in favor of Grigorenko or Yakupov, and like I said at the outset, I could have gone either way. However, I currently see Yakupov as slightly better, although I could potentially see Grigorenko as the slightly better player down the road, but in such a close call, the odd warning sign—even if a marginal one—causes me to lean towards Yakupov.

Again, very long winded

If Murry is gone, the Isles could just say F' it & pick Dumba or Reinhart at #4.. it wouldnt be the first time Snow picked a player expected to go a few spots later.

XxNYIxX

More from Pronman on the difference between Yakupov/Grigorenko and why he ranked Yakupov #1 and Grigorenko #2:

Getting to the decision, though, the major argument that could have vaulted Grigorenko ahead of Yakupov is his hockey sense. While Yakupov is no slouch in that department, and in fact his sense is high end, Grigorenko has elite sense and that is a major difference between them. Their puck skills are both great but I would say Yakupov's are notably better; however, I would still say that overall in terms of puck possession skills, Grigorenko's got the edge. So the major arguments for Yakupov over Grigorenko are his skating and shot, which are better to the same degree to which Grigorenko's sense is better than Yakupov's. In terms of determining forward value, I consider hockey sense notably more valuable than skating—which is very important as well—however, while Grigorenko skates well, Yakupov is arguably elite in that area, so the slight possession separation Grigorenko had in my opinion gets nullified by Yakupov's off the charts skating. At this point, I was basically flipping a coin between the two, so things like finishing, physical game, and intangibles would make up the difference. Yakupov's finishing ability is a major argument in his favor because he has an elite shot and while Grigorenko is a good shooter, like with the skating gap, the degree of Yakupov's ability in that area created clear separation. In a possession-driven league, where finishing ability is hard to predict due to lack of persistence, I approach finishing ability with some caution because it is very hard to project even if on a scouting level in Junior it is very apparent. However, in Yakupov's case, I would be very surprised if he wasn't a true-talent high-end finisher in the pros. Bringing the physical game into the equation, you have a 5'11" forward who is very physical and a 6'3" forward who isn't a null factor but not that physical, so in my view it cancels each other out somewhat when it comes to abilities in board battles and overall physical game ability. There's also the much-asked intangibles question on Grigorenko; my answer is that while he doesn't go all-out every shift, he does not have an intangibles issue in the major sense. He does not have the energy of Yakupov, but he doesn't take games off. His style of game can sometimes come off as lazy, but he's really just a cerebral player and he does commit himself to his defense and will win some board battles. While many bring up his poor CHL playoffs where he seemed extremely lazy, I am under the impression he was playing hurt (and it was also recently reported he was suffering from mono), and in a neutral context over the long term based on the lengthy time I've been following him, I do not feel that is an accurate representation of Grigorenko's effort level. The fact Grigorenko is not that tough is taken into account in the aforementioned physical game arguments, but he's not the kind of player who doesn't backcheck or anything. I see the issue as a minor one, but at the same time we have a player in Grigorenko who even aside from that, has come out marginally behind in head-to-head comparisons skillset-wise, plays center as opposed to wing, and his raw upside is a notch higher due to his elite level possession skills/hockey sense. I have minor arguments in favor of Grigorenko or Yakupov, and like I said at the outset, I could have gone either way. However, I currently see Yakupov as slightly better, although I could potentially see Grigorenko as the slightly better player down the road, but in such a close call, the odd warning sign—even if a marginal one—causes me to lean towards Yakupov.

Again, very long winded
- eichiefs9

Something I can relate to.
But Seriously its informative.

I've read over the past several weeks that the Canadians have dibs on Grigorenko at the 3rd spot.

If it pans out Nail #1 Murray #2 and Grigorenko #3.

That leaves Forsberg & GALCHENYUK in play at #4.

Do you pick one of them or trade down (get additional assets) and take REINHART, TROUBA, DUMBA or CECI

Something I can relate to.
But Seriously its informative.

I've read over the past several weeks that the Canadians have dibs on Grigorenko at the 3rd spot.

If it pans out Nail #1 Murray #2 and Grigorenko #3.

That leaves Forsberg & GALCHENYUK in play at #4.

Do you pick one of them or trade down (get additional assets) and take REINHART, TROUBA, DUMBA or CECI
- SCLI

I'd take Galchenyuk, no question about it. After the rookie season he had, he easily could have been included in the same class as Yakupov/Grigorenko, had he played all year. He'll likely need another year in Jr's next season, which is fine. But he is in his own little class as like a 1B (or 2A, if you want to call Grigorenko 1B), by himself. If we were picking 5 and Yak/Grig/Gally/Murray were all gone, then I'd be totally fine with trading back a few picks and taking a guy like Dumba/Reinhart/Trouba/Rielly/Ceci.

I'd take Galchenyuk, no question about it. After the rookie season he had, he easily could have been included in the same class as Yakupov/Grigorenko, had he played all year. He'll likely need another year in Jr's next season, which is fine. But he is in his own little class as like a 1B (or 2A, if you want to call Grigorenko 1B), by himself. If we were picking 5 and Yak/Grig/Gally/Murray were all gone, then I'd be totally fine with trading back a few picks and taking a guy like Dumba/Reinhart/Trouba/Rielly/Ceci.
- eichiefs9

You've done your homework alright.

Now the big question. Who do you THINK we take?

VG article. You know. The more I read about these kids. The more I get.

I've seen Grigorenko ranked # 3 by Central Scouting #4 By ISS and ranked in the teens by some others.

11 days we'll get our answer.
- SCLI

Eh, I've said before, I'm skeptical when a player falls or rises at the last minute. Couturier supposedly had attitude and motivational issues too, didn't he? Yakupov, Grigorenko and Murray seemed to be the three people were talking about, so assuming Nail goes first, feel fortunate if one of those other two is available at 4.

You've done your homework alright.

Now the big question. Who do you THINK we take?
- SCLI

That's a tough one, because nobody knows what Snow & Co. are thinking.

I want Grigorenko or Galchenyuk, but I get the feeling that they'll be going to CBJ and MTL, in no particular order. If that's the case, then I think we take Murray. Maybe Forsberg. I can't really say what I think they'll do because my personal opinion would probably influence me too much.

Murray makes more sense because he's NHL ready and fills an important gap for us at a position we are lacking at. He also projects as a solid, reliable two-way defenseman for a long time, due to his low-risk.

Forsberg may have more skill than Murray, but he's also significantly behind the "big 3" forwards, in terms of skill. At that point I'd rather address an organizational need if we aren't getting top-end skill.

That's a tough one, because nobody knows what Snow & Co. are thinking.

I want Grigorenko or Galchenyuk, but I get the feeling that they'll be going to CBJ and MTL, in no particular order. If that's the case, then I think we take Murray. Maybe Forsberg. I can't really say what I think they'll do because my personal opinion would probably influence me too much.

Murray makes more sense because he's NHL ready and fills an important gap for us at a position we are lacking at. He also projects as a solid, reliable two-way defenseman for a long time, due to his low-risk.

Forsberg may have more skill than Murray, but he's also significantly behind the "big 3" forwards, in terms of skill. At that point I'd rather address an organizational need if we aren't getting top-end skill.
- eichiefs9

I'm not sure how NHL GM's decide on who to pick? Where talking about 18 year old kids. They must crazy before the draft and after the draft second guessing themselves.

If Murray is gone, wouldn't be surprised if the isles trade down. Sounds like there isn't a huge drop off after that in the top 15. Who knows, snow also said he now has the assets to move to acquire a top 4 d man. Maybe they trade the pick.

More from Pronman on the difference between Yakupov/Grigorenko and why he ranked Yakupov #1 and Grigorenko #2:

Getting to the decision, though, the major argument that could have vaulted Grigorenko ahead of Yakupov is his hockey sense. While Yakupov is no slouch in that department, and in fact his sense is high end, Grigorenko has elite sense and that is a major difference between them. Their puck skills are both great but I would say Yakupov's are notably better; however, I would still say that overall in terms of puck possession skills, Grigorenko's got the edge. So the major arguments for Yakupov over Grigorenko are his skating and shot, which are better to the same degree to which Grigorenko's sense is better than Yakupov's. In terms of determining forward value, I consider hockey sense notably more valuable than skating—which is very important as well—however, while Grigorenko skates well, Yakupov is arguably elite in that area, so the slight possession separation Grigorenko had in my opinion gets nullified by Yakupov's off the charts skating. At this point, I was basically flipping a coin between the two, so things like finishing, physical game, and intangibles would make up the difference. Yakupov's finishing ability is a major argument in his favor because he has an elite shot and while Grigorenko is a good shooter, like with the skating gap, the degree of Yakupov's ability in that area created clear separation. In a possession-driven league, where finishing ability is hard to predict due to lack of persistence, I approach finishing ability with some caution because it is very hard to project even if on a scouting level in Junior it is very apparent. However, in Yakupov's case, I would be very surprised if he wasn't a true-talent high-end finisher in the pros. Bringing the physical game into the equation, you have a 5'11" forward who is very physical and a 6'3" forward who isn't a null factor but not that physical, so in my view it cancels each other out somewhat when it comes to abilities in board battles and overall physical game ability. There's also the much-asked intangibles question on Grigorenko; my answer is that while he doesn't go all-out every shift, he does not have an intangibles issue in the major sense. He does not have the energy of Yakupov, but he doesn't take games off. His style of game can sometimes come off as lazy, but he's really just a cerebral player and he does commit himself to his defense and will win some board battles. While many bring up his poor CHL playoffs where he seemed extremely lazy, I am under the impression he was playing hurt (and it was also recently reported he was suffering from mono), and in a neutral context over the long term based on the lengthy time I've been following him, I do not feel that is an accurate representation of Grigorenko's effort level. The fact Grigorenko is not that tough is taken into account in the aforementioned physical game arguments, but he's not the kind of player who doesn't backcheck or anything. I see the issue as a minor one, but at the same time we have a player in Grigorenko who even aside from that, has come out marginally behind in head-to-head comparisons skillset-wise, plays center as opposed to wing, and his raw upside is a notch higher due to his elite level possession skills/hockey sense. I have minor arguments in favor of Grigorenko or Yakupov, and like I said at the outset, I could have gone either way. However, I currently see Yakupov as slightly better, although I could potentially see Grigorenko as the slightly better player down the road, but in such a close call, the odd warning sign—even if a marginal one—causes me to lean towards Yakupov.

Again, very long winded
- eichiefs9

Good job but wow , you should take over our blogs!

I'm not sure how NHL GM's decide on who to pick? Where talking about 18 year old kids. They must crazy before the draft and after the draft second guessing themselves.
- ses111

Most I'm sure hope to God there scouts did there jobs.

Good job but wow
- Cptmjl

Yeah Pronman tends to be incredibly long-winded, but if you're a giant draft nerd like me it's totally worth reading. If you want to see a really long one on Grigorenko take a look at the article I linked to earlier.

I'm not sure how NHL GM's decide on who to pick? Where talking about 18 year old kids. They must crazy before the draft and after the draft second guessing themselves.
- ses111

It's definitely stressful, I can't even imagine how much so. To me, it's like picking stocks. There's no science to it, you just have to make an educated decision on as many factors as you can and hope it pays off. Some guys are better than others, and sometimes it blows up in your face.

It's definitely stressful, I can't even imagine how much so. To me, it's like picking stocks. There's no science to it, you just have to make an educated decision on as many factors as you can and hope it pays off. Some guys are better than others, and sometimes it blows up in your face.
- eichiefs9

Good analogy. This is why I cannot get upset in who the Isles pick. You can do all your homework and still things may not work out. You really have to credit the teams who get built mostly through the draft.

Good analogy. This is why I cannot get upset in who the Isles pick. You can do all your homework and still things may not work out. You really have to credit the teams who get built mostly through the draft.
- ses111

I don't get overly angry at the draft either. 2 years ago I wanted Niederreiter and we took him, last year I wanted Hamilton and we took Strome. I didn't freak out and now I'm perfectly happy with him..although to be honest, I still feel Hamilton may have been the better pick. Wanted Filatov in '08, wasn't thrilled with Bailey but I guess technically speaking we won on that one, so it worked out.

As long as we don't go way off the board, without trading down, I'll be good. I'll be thrilled with any of Grigorenko, Gally, Murray. I'll say "OK" and reserve my opinion for awhile if it's Forsberg. Anyone else at that spot and I won't be very happy.

This. Thread. Is. Awesome!!
It's about frickin' time, too. Too much sniping, not enough laughing lately. For my liking, at least.

First Mr. Black comes back, and now Chicken Dirt. Hol-eee crap!!

It's like its 2008 again or something. Are pecafan and skalapy back too??







Any Habs rumors?











'Nuff said.

This. Thread. Is. Awesome!!
It's about frickin' time, too. Too much sniping, not enough laughing lately. For my liking, at least.

First Mr. Black comes back, and now Chicken Dirt. Hol-eee crap!!

It's like its 2008 again or something. Are pecafan and skalapy back too??







Any Habs rumors?











'Nuff said.
- potvin05

Only one missing is....


Enough-


XxNYIxX

I don't get overly angry at the draft either. 2 years ago I wanted Niederreiter and we took him, last year I wanted Hamilton and we took Strome. I didn't freak out and now I'm perfectly happy with him..although to be honest, I still feel Hamilton may have been the better pick. Wanted Filatov in '08, wasn't thrilled with Bailey but I guess technically speaking we won on that one, so it worked out.

As long as we don't go way off the board, without trading down, I'll be good. I'll be thrilled with any of Grigorenko, Gally, Murray. I'll say "OK" and reserve my opinion for awhile if it's Forsberg. Anyone else at that spot and I won't be very happy.
- eichiefs9

This is the best way to treat the draft. You have a couple of guys you would like the Isles to draft and reserve judgement on others. You really need to wait a few years down the line to judge a draft. I never understood flipping out on draft night and making a judgement unless your team passed on a sure fire star and who all the experts say will be a star. Even then that star player can crash and burn.

I don't get overly angry at the draft either. 2 years ago I wanted Niederreiter and we took him, last year I wanted Hamilton and we took Strome. I didn't freak out and now I'm perfectly happy with him..although to be honest, I still feel Hamilton may have been the better pick. Wanted Filatov in '08, wasn't thrilled with Bailey but I guess technically speaking we won on that one, so it worked out.

As long as we don't go way off the board, without trading down, I'll be good. I'll be thrilled with any of Grigorenko, Gally, Murray. I'll say "OK" and reserve my opinion for awhile if it's Forsberg. Anyone else at that spot and I won't be very happy.
- eichiefs9

I wanted Filatov too, I guess I learned a draft lesson on that one. I was working when they traded back and lost my shat

This. Thread. Is. Awesome!!
It's about frickin' time, too. Too much sniping, not enough laughing lately. For my liking, at least.

First Mr. Black comes back, and now Chicken Dirt. Hol-eee crap!!

It's like its 2008 again or something. Are pecafan and skalapy back too??







Any Habs rumors?











'Nuff said.
- potvin05

agreed, maybe you can be one of the henchmen?

agreed, maybe you can be one of the henchmen?
- Cptmjl

I'm not around enough anymore to be a henchman.
Maybe a lackey?