|
|
Post by wpghabsfan on Jun 26, 2007 15:38:57 GMT -5
I would have taken Cherepanov ahead of McDonagh, I think he will have much more of an impact in the NHL. By the same token, I think that Cherepanov is much better off in N.Y. than he would have been in Montreal. Just as Esposito is better off in Pittsburgh than he would have been in Montreal. You have to look at what is best for the most people involved. As a fan of the game of hockey and the NHL, things probably turned out as well as they could have in the first round. I disagree. I think McDonagh was the better pick, though on talent alone, Cherepanov is clearly ahead of most players in this draft, but talent only gets you so far. I think character has just as big of part in drafting a player as talent does. Now, I can't start saying Cherepanov has significant character flaws because I've never met him and I've only seen him play on tv, but I get the impression that he maybe another "Kovalev" (using that term loosely) where he may have consistancy problems and/or takes some shifts off. I would take a player with slighty less talent with a great character over a player with amazing talent but with a questionable character. One question would be did A. Kost have a good interview when he got drafted in 2003? Obviously the habs liked him but did they just want to hit a homerun or was there something else they loved about him? (I didn't really follow the draft until about 2005) |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Jun 26, 2007 15:50:28 GMT -5
the biggest difference between cherepanov and any ncaa first round picks is there is a chance he will stay in russia, whereas with an ncaa pick you get a good school that grooms them, teaches them the game and you don't have to pay a cent for it or against your cap for 2-4 years. hard to pass on that. that is the biggest reason why so many teams went with US players.
i actually see tier 2 junior A hockey becoming a lot more common of choice for future players in canada. turris is just the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 27, 2007 22:56:06 GMT -5
Were all the games in the Russian elite league easy? You are talking about a player who beat Pavel Bure's record for points by a rookie, and he had more points than Ovechkin and Malkin in their rookie seasons. Would you pass up on those two? It looks different if you keep it in context. When Bure was a rookei, almost all the best Russian players were in the RSL or whatever it was called then. I would think that league was a whole bunch better then. |
|
|
|
Post by skunk on Jun 28, 2007 0:33:35 GMT -5
Well, the cautionary tale about Cherepanov's scoring exploits would have to be Sergei Samsonov, who scored more points at a younger age in the RSL. Not that Samsonov has been a dud in the NHL or anything, but he hasn't been Pavel Bure, either.
You could see some signs of Cherepanov's "character issues" at the draft. He looked pretty disgusted with the whole process, and didn't show a lot of patience when his translator took a cell phone call for him. Maybe it was a telemarketer or something, but he was pretty rude in shoving it out of the way. Esposito was much more even tempered about the situation than Cherepanov was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 28, 2007 6:58:49 GMT -5
One question would be did A. Kost have a good interview when he got drafted in 2003? Obviously the habs liked him but did they just want to hit a homerun or was there something else they loved about him? (I didn't really follow the draft until about 2005) At the time we had a Russian scout (not sure if he's still there) who's opinion had a lot of weight with Andre Savard. Timmins once said that AK was not his primary choice when that pick got done so you could think that GM Savard is the one that went out on a limb with it. RedLine was really excited with the pick and even called Kosts the most skilled player of the draft at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 28, 2007 7:18:03 GMT -5
One question would be did A. Kost have a good interview when he got drafted in 2003? Obviously the habs liked him but did they just want to hit a homerun or was there something else they loved about him? (I didn't really follow the draft until about 2005) At the time we had a Russian scout (not sure if he's still there) who's opinion had a lot of weight with Andre Savard. Timmins once said that AK was not his primary choice when that pick got done so you could think that GM Savard is the one that went out on a limb with it. RedLine was really excited with the pick and even called Kosts the most skilled player of the draft at the time. Doc, was Savard the GM in 2003? I may be wrong but I thought Gainey was in charge by then. In any case, maybe this partly explains the Gainey/Savard rift. Savard said that BG didn't always listen to him re: drafting. This looks like a case where Savard overruled Timmins & was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 28, 2007 8:08:35 GMT -5
At the time we had a Russian scout (not sure if he's still there) who's opinion had a lot of weight with Andre Savard. Timmins once said that AK was not his primary choice when that pick got done so you could think that GM Savard is the one that went out on a limb with it. RedLine was really excited with the pick and even called Kosts the most skilled player of the draft at the time. Doc, was Savard the GM in 2003? I may be wrong but I thought Gainey was in charge by then. In any case, maybe this partly explains the Gainey/Savard rift. Savard said that BG didn't always listen to him re: drafting. This looks like a case where Savard overruled Timmins & was wrong. Gainey was hired in 2004 wasn't he? Just before the acquisitions of Kovalev and Bonk and prior to the 2005 lock-out. The 2004 draft he didn't participate (only from the sidelines) because he wanted to "get up to speed". |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jun 28, 2007 9:55:24 GMT -5
One question would be did A. Kost have a good interview when he got drafted in 2003? Obviously the habs liked him but did they just want to hit a homerun or was there something else they loved about him? (I didn't really follow the draft until about 2005) At the time we had a Russian scout (not sure if he's still there) who's opinion had a lot of weight with Andre Savard. Timmins once said that AK was not his primary choice when that pick got done so you could think that GM Savard is the one that went out on a limb with it. RedLine was really excited with the pick and even called Kosts the most skilled player of the draft at the time. Vakourov was the Russian scout who suggested Kostitsyn. The same guy who got us Markov, Emelin etc... Savard was GM at the 2003 draft. If memory serves, Kost was a concensus top 10 pick. The latter simply refused to come to North America after he was drafted. He chose instead to warm the bench for CSKA for a year. I doubt Vakourov was aware of this ahead of time and Savard can't really be blamed for Kostitsyn's decision. I wonder what Vakourov had to say about Cherepanov. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 28, 2007 17:32:05 GMT -5
Gainey was hired in 2004 wasn't he? Just before the acquisitions of Kovalev and Bonk and prior to the 2005 lock-out. The 2004 draft he didn't participate (only from the sidelines) because he wanted to "get up to speed". Gainey was hired on June 2nd 2003 (during the Stanley Cup finals). However, officially, Savard was still GM at the 2003 Draft. Gainey attended the draft and even when up on stage when Kostitsyn's name was called, but he didn't participate in the draft because he didn't have enough knowledge about the prospects. Gainey officially took over as Habs' GM on July 1st 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by skunk on Jun 28, 2007 18:23:38 GMT -5
All the pics I've seen of Kostitsyn from the 2003 draft he has ANDRE SAVARD on one side of him, and TREVOR TIMMINS on the other side. Gainey's hands are clean in that situation. Not to mention CORY URQUHART who was drafted early in the second round.
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 28, 2007 22:52:44 GMT -5
All the pics I've seen of Kostitsyn from the 2003 draft he has ANDRE SAVARD on one side of him, and TREVOR TIMMINS on the other side. Gainey's hands are clean in that situation. Not to mention CORY URQUHART who was drafted early in the second round. Oh how I wanted O'Sullivan... |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 28, 2007 22:53:16 GMT -5
All the pics I've seen of Kostitsyn from the 2003 draft he has ANDRE SAVARD on one side of him, and TREVOR TIMMINS on the other side. Gainey's hands are clean in that situation. Not to mention CORY URQUHART who was drafted early in the second round. The good with the bad though, as Lapierre, O'Byrne and Halak are looking like pretty solid picks for when they were made and the jury is still out on Locke although he was the most improved Bulldog come playoff time this year. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 28, 2007 23:07:39 GMT -5
Cherepanov's negative traits seem eerily similar to that of Kovalev and Samsonov, so I don't think we can really blame Gainey for wanting to stay away from a player like that.
Talent-wise, Cherepanov was probably the best player available, but it takes a lot more than just talent to become an NHL star. Time will tell if Cherepanov can be the whole package.
|
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Jun 28, 2007 23:57:57 GMT -5
Cherepanov's negative traits seem eerily similar to that of Kovalev and Samsonov, so I don't think we can really blame Gainey for wanting to stay away from a player like that. Talent-wise, Cherepanov was probably the best player available, but it takes a lot more than just talent to become an NHL star. Time will tell if Cherepanov can be the whole package. with what he's been through from russia: samsonov pout-no-trademe, kovalev-no-show, alex perezhoginseeyalateralligatorinawhilecrocodile, and finally yemelin imcontrolledbymyrussiandoubleagent, i don't think another russian was his goal this draft. mcdonagh from what i've read is a better pick. we got markov, we got valentenko, who was the same guy timmbits and co. drafted only 1 year ago. anyway i agree, pass please. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 29, 2007 2:10:16 GMT -5
All the pics I've seen of Kostitsyn from the 2003 draft he has ANDRE SAVARD on one side of him, and TREVOR TIMMINS on the other side. Gainey's hands are clean in that situation. Not to mention CORY URQUHART who was drafted early in the second round. That stings - out of two picks in the top 40 of the strongest draft in recent years, one is still very much a question mark while the other may never see a game in the NHL. Lapierre was a great late second round pick, but Urquart ahead of Weber, Carle, and Bergeron hurts. We've since drafter our own Weber, and Carle - we'll see what happens with them. |
|
|
|
Post by skunk on Jun 29, 2007 15:33:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I suppose the 2003 draft is history, and there is no profit in crying over spilt milk. But, as I mentioned earlier, it is hard to see the logic in using a top 10 pick in a deep draft on a guy who wasn't good enough to play in the RSL at 17 (or 18 for that matter), while not being willing to use a later pick in a weaker draft on a guy who was a first line regular in the same league at 17. As also mentioned, Max Lapierre looks like a solid pick from the same draft, and Jaroslav Halak looks like an absolute steal as a ninth round pick. Halak is looking like a first round quality player, while Urquhart looks like a ninth round quality pick. Kostitsyn maybe a late second round quality talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canadien Errant on Jun 30, 2007 16:31:14 GMT -5
I would have taken Cherepanov ahead of McDonagh, I think he will have much more of an impact in the NHL. By the same token, I think that Cherepanov is much better off in N.Y. than he would have been in Montreal. Just as Esposito is better off in Pittsburgh than he would have been in Montreal. You have to look at what is best for the most people involved. As a fan of the game of hockey and the NHL, things probably turned out as well as they could have in the first round. In almost every individual drat pick that any team makes, you can find someone taken later in the draft who turned out to be a better player. If you remember the clip that TSN ran about late round steals prior to their draft coverage, that pretty much puts a total lie to all the hollow protestations that execs make about taking "the best player available" at the spot. Players like Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Alfredsson, Markov, Kaberle, Vokoun, etc. have turned out better than hundreds of players drafted ahead of them in their respective draft years. Every year the same thing happens, so as long as a team gets a servicable player who fits into their system and their needs, they should consider themselves lucky. Inevitably there will be players taken later in the draft that turn out better than the guy they took. What I have a hard time understanding is how the Habs could use the #10 overall pick in a deep draft (2003) on a player who managed 0 points in 6 games in the RSL in his draft year (and wasn't any better the following year), but were afraid to risk the #12 overall in a shallow draft (2007) on a kid who scored 40 odd points in the same league in his draft year. Same size, and seems a lot smarter to boot. It is ironic that the same fans who will defend the selection of Kostitsyn to the gates of hell find a way to write off Cherepanov as being "too risky" a pick. I agree with you about Kostitsyn. He was a very risky pick. And that is probably why the Habs did not pick Kopitar two years later. Anyway, they hit the jackpot with Price. The 2003 draft was very deep. Too bad the Habs did not drafted the ever-missing big center that they still badly need: Getzlaf ! |
|
|
|
Post by DeathdrivesaVW on Jul 7, 2007 15:31:58 GMT -5
Well, the cautionary tale about Cherepanov's scoring exploits would have to be Sergei Samsonov, who scored more points at a younger age in the RSL. Not that Samsonov has been a dud in the NHL or anything, but he hasn't been Pavel Bure, either. You could see some signs of Cherepanov's "character issues" at the draft. He looked pretty disgusted with the whole process, and didn't show a lot of patience when his translator took a cell phone call for him. Maybe it was a telemarketer or something, but he was pretty rude in shoving it out of the way. Esposito was much more even tempered about the situation than Cherepanov was. Imagine being listed as one of the Top 3 best Cricket players and all of a Sudden being at a Draft in India... Your completely out of your element (I assume) on National TV...all eyes are on you... you have no idea what's going on. How much should people read into ur actions on that day? |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 7, 2007 16:43:02 GMT -5
Your basic values don't change from day to day, venue to venue, hockey to cricket.
|
|
