Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
and a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now.
|
NO IT'S NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
...still talking about who has an hasn't played in the NHL is pretty poor argument. Burmistov was drafted in 2010, played in the 2010-2011 season but he's in the KHL now. Even if he wasn't a flight risk and Winnipeg was actually using him improperly, no one would take him over Schwartz and Tarasenko in St. Louis today. Yet they didn't play until the 2012-2013 season, 2 years after Burmistov.
Paarjavi was drafted in 2009 and played in the 2010-2011 season but at this point Kreider, who was also 2009, is looking much much better despite this being his rookie NHL season.
Josh Bailey was drafted in 2008, played the entire 2008-2009 season. While Erik Karlsson, drafted the same year, didn't touch NHL ice until the 2009-2010 season and Pietrangelo first real season was 2010-2011.
Playing in the NHL before another prospect isn't the best indicator of determining who's the better prospect. Making an actual impact in the NHL is a bit different.
Not that I'm saying anything about Jankowski, just that making the NHL earlier isn't always the biggest decider.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
I'm not arguing that a team should never take on a project, I'm arguing in our situation and looking at the picks that were available, we made a poor choice. I look at the Janko pick as taking as long for results and having the probability of success as drafting a goalie. Anybody think we should have drafted a goalie with our 1st if he was the BPA?
|
I think the problem is that goalies are seldom the best player available in the first round, and furthermore, present a higher risk factor because their own development is so specialised. It's a good comparison with regards to the timeframe, but a poor comparison beyond this because Jankowski is a forward, and because of the several other factors that make the pick unique.