VOTE - Ottawa Senators Top Prospects: #1 (2015)

Vote now or vote never

Nice, thanks for doing this.

I went with White, although Puempel, Paul and Wickstrand are right there likely.

I like what I've read about White - a lot. He seems to play the game the right way, like Lazar, Pageau, Turris and Stone before him. He's a strong competitor in all three zones, works hard on and off the ice, is a leader and seems to have the qualities you want in building a championship team.

That said, I've never once seen him play.

I have trouble with the first couple of guys, but I decided on Paul. I think he'll be the better player, though I believe Puempel is clearly closer.

Pumps is most likely to perform at the highest level this coming season. Of course, that isn't what "top prospect" means, so I didn't vote for him as #1. I believe Paul has higher upside, and I believe that when we're voting for the top prospect, we're NOT trying to determine who will have the best NHL season next year.

In the summer of 2008 Karlsson was the best prospect in the Sens organization, regardless of how ready he was at the moment. The fact that he played in the SEL the following season doesn't mean he wasn't the top prospect in '08.

Even TSN picked Karlsson in '08. http://www2.tsn.ca/draftcentre/story/?id=278450

Top prospect and most ready prospect aren't the same thing.

SpezDispensed wrote:I went with White, although Puempel, Paul and Wickstrand are right there likely.

I like what I've read about White - a lot.  He seems to play the game the right way, like Lazar, Pageau, Turris and Stone before him.  He's a strong competitor in all three zones, works hard on and off the ice, is a leader and seems to have the qualities you want in building a championship team.

That said, I've never once seen him play.

...but you have seen him snub Bettman when offered a handshake. That should add some value.

SpezDispensed wrote:Nice, thanks for doing this.

Agreed. I like that there isn't a consensus. Three votes so far, all for different players.

There can only be one right answer though because the answer is whoever the organization likes best. Right?

That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

I'm not sure if those comments are meant for me or not, but I've said before that I think top prospect = highest upside.

Culek was picked over 100 spots above Stone, but Stone was clearly the better prospect (not right away, but eventually).

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

no, I'm not. You're choosing not to read my posts carefully.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:That and where they were picked in the draft, right?

As of today, yes the recent first rounders shoot up to to the top because of their talent and where they were picked

So if I think a guy that was picked later or a guy that was picked a couple of years ago has shown significant improvement and I believe he projects to be better than the latest first rounder, I'm not allowed to pick him?

This is precisely where I'm having trouble. According to Ev's way of thinking, Stone, who improved exponentially after his draft year would be supplanted by a guy like O'Brien, simply due to draft positioning.

He's ignoring development completely.

no, I'm not. You're choosing not to read my posts carefully.

Consider the possibility that you're not communicating effectively. If you notice a whole bunch of readers misunderstanding you, consider that you might be the problem.

I think the formula is to take the hype originating from the organization and adding that players position in the draft, divide by 2 and multiply by the draft year you get your answer?