2012/13 Lineup

I'm usually on the same page with being pretty skeptical of rookies coming into the lineup (like I am with Zibanejad) but Silfverberg is a different animal this time around. Is there a chance he busts? Sure there is. Would I bet on him busting? No, I wouldn't because chances are I would lose.

This is a kid that is 100% ready to bring his game over to the NHL and he could very well be a better player in NA than Europe just based on the game he plays.

I'm not saying he will be putting up 30 goals, 60 points (although I think he could flirt with it if everything went right for him), but I think he will be knocking on the 20 goal mark if he plays the full season in the top 6 with some PP time. He's going to be a solid NHL player.

Big Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Hell I'd chalk up 15 for Zibby too if he makes it. Similar to JVR's rookie campaign.

Yah, don't see #93 making it out of camp this time around. Needs to put up #'s somewhere before he does it in the NHL. He's literally never put up any kind of real outstanding numbers in any league to this point.

Can't look at numbers for Swedes.

That's silly. Of course you can. What a silly thing to say.

Not silly at all. Numbers for Swedes never tell the whole story. Even if you put up great numbers it doesn't show you're ready for the NHL or anything like that (Rundblad). MZ's junior league numbers are fine though.

No, they don't I agree. That said he still hasn't show that he has the offensive instincts to really thrive in the NHL at this point. IMO he needs to do something decent in the AHL before being ready for the show.

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

We haven't had an incoming rookie crop like this in a long, long time. Last year's rookie forwards all produced as expected for the most part

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

We don't have much room on the roster if you look at the amount of 1-way contracts. No way Silf and Zib can make it.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

We haven't had an incoming rookie crop like this in a long, long time. Last year's rookie forwards all produced as expected for the most part

This.

Hoags wrote:We don't have much room on the roster if you look at the amount of 1-way contracts. No way Silf and Zib can make it.

If they both prove they can make it, they will make room.

NEELY wrote:I'm usually on the same page with being pretty skeptical of rookies coming into the lineup (like I am with Zibanejad) but Silfverberg is a different animal this time around. Is there a chance he busts? Sure there is. Would I bet on him busting? No, I wouldn't because chances are I would lose.

This is a kid that is 100% ready to bring his game over to the NHL and he could very well be a better player in NA than Europe just based on the game he plays.

I'm not saying he will be putting up 30 goals, 60 points (although I think he could flirt with it if everything went right for him), but I think he will be knocking on the 20 goal mark if he plays the full season in the top 6 with some PP time. He's going to be a solid NHL player.

That's a fairer point, I suppose. I'm just jaded after 10 years of not having any forwards step into this line up and immediately start putting up big points.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

We haven't had an incoming rookie crop like this in a long, long time. Last year's rookie forwards all produced as expected for the most part

Claims like that, I'm super skeptical of. The promise of the future is always, in hindsight, brighter than what has been delivered in the past. There have been too many Rundblads and Da Costas and Butlers and Winchesters to go against the idea.

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

In part, yes. The odds are stacked against him. It happens to maybe 5 rookies a year, 10 in a great year. It's not a game of pure stats or odds, I agree, but walking into an NHL line up and producing at a high level in the first year is a rare, rare thing.

was Jess Winchester really ever hyped as a point producer?

and Butler and Da Costa are undrafted guys who really aren't on the same level as other rookies.

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

In part, yes. The odds are stacked against him. It happens to maybe 5 rookies a year, 10 in a great year. It's not a game of pure stats or odds, I agree, but walking into an NHL line up and producing at a high level in the first year is a rare, rare thing.

True, but I think you're looking at the wrong things here. Who cares what the odds are, the guy's a blue chip. None of Da Costa, Winch, Butler were anywhere near the same class. Sure, the odds are against a statistical player, but this guy has the odds stacked in his favour cause he's good.

Big Ev wrote:was Jess Winchester really ever hyped as a point producer?

and Butler and Da Costa are undrafted guys who really aren't on the same level as other rookies.

And your explanation for Rundblad is...?

It happens all the time. Highly touted rookies, drafted or not, come in, and under perform. There's no denying it. Brayden Schenn was supposed to light the league on fire, too. Instead, he put up 12 goals and 18 points in 58 games.

Why are people resisting this? It happens all the time, every year, to many, many teams and many, many rookies.

NEELY wrote:I'm usually on the same page with being pretty skeptical of rookies coming into the lineup (like I am with Zibanejad) but Silfverberg is a different animal this time around. Is there a chance he busts? Sure there is. Would I bet on him busting? No, I wouldn't because chances are I would lose.

This is a kid that is 100% ready to bring his game over to the NHL and he could very well be a better player in NA than Europe just based on the game he plays.

I'm not saying he will be putting up 30 goals, 60 points (although I think he could flirt with it if everything went right for him), but I think he will be knocking on the 20 goal mark if he plays the full season in the top 6 with some PP time. He's going to be a solid NHL player.

Bet? Did I hear bet?

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

In part, yes. The odds are stacked against him. It happens to maybe 5 rookies a year, 10 in a great year. It's not a game of pure stats or odds, I agree, but walking into an NHL line up and producing at a high level in the first year is a rare, rare thing.

True, but I think you're looking at the wrong things here. Who cares what the odds are, the guy's a blue chip. None of Da Costa, Winch, Butler were anywhere near the same class. Sure, the odds are against a statistical player, but this guy has the odds stacked in his favour cause he's good.

What makes a prospect "blue chip" beyond the constant hype? A high first rounder? Hmm, see Hickey, or Bailey. A first rounder? See Rundblad. Lots of attention and hype, and honours in other leagues? See Schenn and Rundblad. And why are we making distinctions between the hype around, say, an undrafted player, and a 2nd rounder?

Prospects are prospects until they prove, in the NHL, that they are anything different. Not every highly touted prospect's game translates seamlessly into the NHL. I'm hopeful, but I don't want to bet an 82-game season on it.

rooneypoo wrote:That's a fairer point, I suppose. I'm just jaded after 10 years of not having any forwards step into this line up and immediately start putting up big points.

Trust us on this one maybe? Everyone who's seen him play is expecting him to be an impact player in the NHL. By impact, I mean he comes on the scene and score 17 goals and 44 points - or somewhere in that area. Will he have major ups and major downs? Sure, but he's in the top class of rookies ready to make names for themselves.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:That's a fairer point, I suppose. I'm just jaded after 10 years of not having any forwards step into this line up and immediately start putting up big points.

Trust us on this one maybe? Everyone who's seen him play is expecting him to be an impact player in the NHL. By impact, I mean he comes on the scene and score 17 goals and 44 points - or somewhere in that area. Will he have major ups and major downs? Sure, but he's in the top class of rookies ready to make names for themselves.

The same people who told me to 'watch out for Rundblad, he's Karlsson 2.0!,' or 'Butler could be that 20+ goal guy and fill a top 6 hole,' or (LOL -- different I know, but I can't resist) that 'Cheechoo will come in and score 20+ goals, easy'? I think you can understand my feelings of skepticism.

I buy what I see the kids do in the NHL, on the ice. Until they get there, it's all hype, and it's all equally subject to skepticism. The people who follow the prospects very closely are, for me, too close to them and to this team for me to trust their sense of how our kids stack up against the other 700+ players currently in the NHL.

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

In part, yes. The odds are stacked against him. It happens to maybe 5 rookies a year, 10 in a great year. It's not a game of pure stats or odds, I agree, but walking into an NHL line up and producing at a high level in the first year is a rare, rare thing.

True, but I think you're looking at the wrong things here. Who cares what the odds are, the guy's a blue chip. None of Da Costa, Winch, Butler were anywhere near the same class. Sure, the odds are against a statistical player, but this guy has the odds stacked in his favour cause he's good.

What makes a prospect "blue chip" beyond the constant hype? A high first rounder? Hmm, see Hickey, or Bailey. A first rounder? See Rundblad. Lots of attention and hype, and honours in other leagues? See Schenn and Rundblad. And why are we making distinctions between the hype around, say, an undrafted player, and a 2nd rounder?

Prospects are prospects until they prove, in the NHL, that they are anything different. Not every highly touted prospect's game translates seamlessly into the NHL. I'm hopeful, but I don't want to bet an 82-game season on it.

I think somewhere between tearing up the SEL and winning the MVP trifecta (Guldhjälmen, Goldpuken, playoff MVP) he fell into "blue chip" status. Oh, beating Alfie's SEL playoff goal record was sweet too. Like any prospect, he might not work out. Still, he has a better chance than most.