asq2 wrote: SeawaySensFan wrote:I just think that you're stuck then trying to find big wingers for RNH and you already need better wingers for Spezza. Just digging a hole so to speak. That's just the way I see it. Mostly going with my gut on this too.
SeawaySensFan wrote:I wouldn't bet on it Spez. We still might end up with a good player in 3 or 4 years but I personally like the addition of an immediate impact player.
RNH needs wingers but probably less than Landeskog needs a centre. RNH has more potential to be the focal point of the offensive line he plays on whereas Landeskog is unbelievably well-rounded but has questions about his ultimate offensive upside. I also believe that the way to go is to build down the middle.
By adding RNH you're taking away from this team's dependence on Spezza and his injury concerns. It's also a move for the long-term for this franchise - I mean, let's face it, the majority of the players we've begun pinning our hopes on are guys like Karlsson, Rundblad, Cowen, Lehner etc. none of whom is over 20, so with the exception of EK I don't think we can expect them to carry this team in the immediate future. I think getting an asset for when these guys are ready to contend is probably better. And we'll have plenty of time, picks, and potentially cap-space to add ancillary offensive pieces, with the core guy (potentially) already in place.
I get the argument on the other hand that Landeskog is a more rare prospect than a RNH is - generally you can find players similar to Nugent-Hopkins in a draft, but infrequently do you see a guy like Landeskog - but considering our forward situation I think RNH is a piece the team needs more. As far as the "immediate impact player" idea is concerned, I'm curious: when was the last time an 18-year-old played on the Sens? And I'm not sure he's likely to be a big-time impact player at that age.
Lastly, this is potentially the highest we'll have picked in a decade (since Spezza in '01) and could be monumental in deciding the direction of the franchise. With that in mind, I think we'd all regret ending up with the lesser player long-term because we wanted a guy who could step in right away even though we had at best a feeble chance at competing at the time. Now, if you feel Landeskog is the best asset long-term, you go for it and the relative NHL-readiness is just the icing on the cake. But if you think RNH will be the better player 4 years or so from now, you've gotta go with him even if he takes one or two years longer to crack the roster.
Obviously, though, I'd be thrilled to get either and I'm not holding my breath that we will. NJ still sucks, NYI is decimated by injuries and has already begun selling away assets (like Wisniewski), Toronto and Calgary just got owned by the Rangers and Wild, respectively, and Edmonton is just terrible. We've lost a lot of games too but at least recently we've started looking good while doing it. 
Home
Publications
