2012/13 Lineup

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.

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.

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.

rooneypoo wrote:
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.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
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.

90% of the time I agree with you. Rundblad couldn't adapt to the speed of the NA game, thought he'd have no problems personally. Silfverberg is a smart, shifty player who has a laser beam of a shot. If MacLean can get his confidence up from the get go, he's gonna do some damage just by accepting passes and using his skills. If not, then Bingo it is, but he won't last there.

Zibanejad is a different story, Stone is as well, although I think Stone does very well in the pros.

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
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.

90% of the time I agree with you. Rundblad couldn't adapt to the speed of the NA game, thought he'd have no problems personally. Silfverberg is a smart, shifty player who has a laser beam of a shot. If MacLean can get his confidence up from the get go, he's gonna do some damage just by accepting passes and using his skills. If not, then Bingo it is, but he won't last there.

Zibanejad is a different story, Stone is as well, although I think Stone does very well in the pros.

I'm really curious to see how he does. I wonder how he'll translate.

SpezDispenser wrote:

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
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.

90% of the time I agree with you. Rundblad couldn't adapt to the speed of the NA game, thought he'd have no problems personally. Silfverberg is a smart, shifty player who has a laser beam of a shot. If MacLean can get his confidence up from the get go, he's gonna do some damage just by accepting passes and using his skills. If not, then Bingo it is, but he won't last there.

Zibanejad is a different story, Stone is as well, although I think Stone does very well in the pros.

I'm really curious to see how he does. I wonder how he'll translate.

I think he does really well. He can get to those areas to score goals - which is a universal talent - and he'll have Zibanejad or Da Costa or Hoffman feeding him apples all day long. Could score a fair bit this year in the A.

So, who did shine at development camp?

Small but stylish forward Mike Hoffman, a 21-goal scorer for the AHL Binghamton Senators last season, was talked about often this past week. So, too, was Zibanejad (initially called out by head coach Paul MacLean after an early scrimmage — wake up call?), forward Mark Stone, goaltender Robin Lehner and defenceman Mark Borowiecki of Kanata.

NEELY wrote:They will let guys fight it out for the finals spots up in Ottawa but you can bet they will have no issue's waiving guys who have 1 year left on their deals around a million or less.

Daugavins, Butler, Regin, Condra, those guys need to be fantastic to keep their jobs.

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:They will let guys fight it out for the finals spots up in Ottawa but you can bet they will have no issue's waiving guys who have 1 year left on their deals around a million or less.

Daugavins, Butler, Regin, Condra, those guys need to be fantastic to keep their jobs.

Who's the last guy Murray waived at camp ? Schubert ?

I would only put Daug in the waiver category. Condra is a big part of our PK units and I doubt he'll waive a college UFA he went all out to get, they didn't sign Regin just to waive him.

Murray is too nice to waive someone.

NEELY wrote:

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:They will let guys fight it out for the finals spots up in Ottawa but you can bet they will have no issue's waiving guys who have 1 year left on their deals around a million or less.

Daugavins, Butler, Regin, Condra, those guys need to be fantastic to keep their jobs.

Who's the last guy Murray waived at camp ? Schubert ?

I would only put Daug in the waiver category. Condra is a big part of our PK units and I doubt he'll waive a college UFA he went all out to get, they didn't sign Regin just to waive him.

Murray is too nice to waive someone.

I think Condra and Regin are fairly safe. Butler and Daugavins? They need to out perform everyone from Bingo basically or it's over.

NEELY wrote:
I think Condra and Regin are fairly safe. Butler and Daugavins? They need to out perform everyone from Bingo basically or it's over.

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:
I think Condra and Regin are fairly safe. Butler and Daugavins? They need to out perform everyone from Bingo basically or it's over.

I don't think Murray will tarnish his NCAA UFA reputation by waiving Butler. He'll stick around for the year, get his $1M and he'll walk.

spader wrote:

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.

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

spader wrote:

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.

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
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.

90% of the time I agree with you. Rundblad couldn't adapt to the speed of the NA game, thought he'd have no problems personally. Silfverberg is a smart, shifty player who has a laser beam of a shot. If MacLean can get his confidence up from the get go, he's gonna do some damage just by accepting passes and using his skills. If not, then Bingo it is, but he won't last there.

Zibanejad is a different story, Stone is as well, although I think Stone does very well in the pros.

I'm really curious to see how he does. I wonder how he'll translate.

I think he does really well. He can get to those areas to score goals - which is a universal talent - and he'll have Zibanejad or Da Costa or Hoffman feeding him apples all day long. Could score a fair bit this year in the A.

If Scanlon is to be believed, Hoffman had a great camp:

So, who did shine at development camp?

Small but stylish forward Mike Hoffman, a 21-goal scorer for the AHL Binghamton Senators last season, was talked about often this past week. So, too, was Zibanejad (initially called out by head coach Paul MacLean after an early scrimmage — wake up call?), forward Mark Stone, goaltender Robin Lehner and defenceman Mark Borowiecki of Kanata.

http://www.senatorsextra.com/main/scanlan-with-present-needs-met-senators-turn-attention-back-to-the-future