POLL: Which Senators prospect are you most excited about?

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:The thing I hate about Zibanejad's game and the reason I think he won't be a huge offensive threat is because he doesn't want the puck, he wants to get rid of it. Whether that is by passing it off or taking a shot from just inside the blueline, he wants the puck off his stick. That's what ha soured me.

Oh, like that gold-winning goal?

He was in the right position. Created a turn over, put it in the net. Waited for the other team to make a mistake, very much a defensive system.

But according to your assessment he should have immediately looked for someone to pass it.

He was in on a breakaway... if there was someone with him I am of the opinion he would have passed it off, yes.

And you are not considering, even for a few seconds, the possibility that he is adjusting, maturing, improving, and he now finds that he *does* want that puck? I know it was just a rookie camp game and all, but he was the one scoring the winner in OT, just like he did in the gold medal game. He's making a bit of a habit of it.

We'll see soon enough. I fully expect him to be in Bingo to start the year and we'll see after that.

For sure I consider maybe he's just nervous and playing not to make a mistake vs playing to dominate the game, it's a possibility. That said, even at the WJC he didntt like having the puck as much as a natural goal scorer or play maker does although it was better at that level than the NHL level.

Either way, maybe it's a confidence thing but maybe it's not. We'll see, just not my favorite prospect and I think he is very limited in what he will become.

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say it again:

I think Murray's believes Noesen's upside is higher (than Foligno's).

I think Murray believes in the Bogeyman, and unicorns.

These statements are useless. The "I think X actually believes Y..." formula is 100% speculation.

I agree with SD when he says Murray thinks Foligno was expendable... not sure if I agree with him when he says Murray thinks this, this, and that though. If a trade goes down I think it will tell you more than you can figure out right now though.

It's my personal belief the Sens are not as high on Zibanejad as they may have been in the past but that's speculation on my part.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say it again:

I think Murray's believes Noesen's upside is higher (than Foligno's).

I think Murray believes in the Bogeyman, and unicorns.

These statements are useless. The "I think X actually believes Y..." formula is 100% speculation.

There's a reason Foligno isn't around. There's also a reason we didn't pay him 3.1 X 3 years. That reason? Murray believes Noesen and I guess Zibanejad can play a similar role - for less $$. I like the sound of Methot, but getting a D-man wasn't the only reason we traded Foligno - he had become redundant. Whether you want to say it's Player X or Player Y that made him redundant, I don't really care, but my take is that Murray believes Noesen's upside is higher than Foligno's and he cashed in the chips now.

NEELY wrote:I agree with SD when he says Murray thinks Foligno was expendable... not sure if I agree with him when he says Murray thinks this, this, and that though. If a trade goes down I think it will tell you more than you can figure out right now though.

It's my personal belief the Sens are not as high on Zibanejad as they may have been in the past but that's speculation on my part.

Oh, sure. I agree -- BM clearly saw Foligno, at 23, as a fringe top 6er / tweener. Because he watched him play for 4 years. Because he was an established commodity. Because he traded him, not wanting to pay him top 6 money.

If SD's claim were that "BM right now thinks higher of Noeson than Foligino," it's a point too self-evident to be debated -- he traded Foligno, which tells us everything we need to know. Trading Foligno tells us more about BM's opinion of Foligno, however, and nothing at all about his opinion of Noesen (it's not like Noesen would have landed us Methot -- not a chance), so you can't turn that one around.

But to say that BM is "higher" on Noesen right now than he was on Foligno a year after his drafted? No only do I not think so (because I think organization's are generally hopefully of what their prospects are and might become that early), there's no way to know anyway. So, again, it's speculation, and it's BS. Foligno and Noesen were late 1st round picks -- in their first year in the organization, I'm sure they were both viewed as being potential top 6ers. Again, it's not like they drafted Foligno to be a plug. Ditto Noesen.

By all means, have your opinion, and argue it. Just don't tell me your opinion is actually BM's, because then you're just full of Dung.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say it again:

I think Murray's believes Noesen's upside is higher (than Foligno's).

I think Murray believes in the Bogeyman, and unicorns.

These statements are useless. The "I think X actually believes Y..." formula is 100% speculation.

There's a reason Foligno isn't around. There's also a reason we didn't pay him 3.1 X 3 years. That reason? Murray believes Noesen and I guess Zibanejad can play a similar role - for less $$. I like the sound of Methot, but getting a D-man wasn't the only reason we traded Foligno - he had become redundant. Whether you want to say it's Player X or Player Y that made him redundant, I don't really care, but my take is that Murray believes Noesen's upside is higher than Foligno's and he cashed in the chips now.

Foligno isn't around because we didn't want to pay him $3+ mil, and because we didn't view him as anything other than a fringe top 6er / tweener. I agree that the organization clearly believes that they can slot someone else in there for cheaper to get similar production (i.e., Latendresse, Regin, Silf, etc.).

Where you err is in assuming that trading Foligno had anything whatsoever to do with the organization's opinion of Noesen. There's no connection there. Noesen is not going to play in the NHL this year. We weren't going to get Methot for Noesen (no chance). What we did with Foligno literally has nothing to do with Noesen, and doesn't tell us anything about the organization's opinion of the latter -- just the former.

The other issue is that your original statement ("I think from what I read that management is much higher on Noeson then what they thought Foligno could be") made it sound like you were saying that you thought BM was higher on 19 year old Noesen than 19 year old Foligno, which to me is absolute horse Dung. Every organization is high on its 1st round draft picks, and thinks/hopes they will become top 6ers / impact players.

Yeah, anyway: trading Foligno tells us nothing about the organization's opinion of Noesen in particular. It speaks to Foligno, to BM's sense of how he could be replaced for cheaper (either via UFA or internally). Don't conflate the issues.

Meanwhile, over in another thread, I posted that Larry Robinson is going to San Jose as an associate coach. Associate? He's been head-coach more than a few times, won the Cup with the Devils and brought the to the Finals the next year. Should McLellan be worried? Why didn't the Habs grab him?

Man, I feel like creating a Sens prospects site. Would anyone actually be interested though?

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say it again:

I think Murray's believes Noesen's upside is higher (than Foligno's).

I think Murray believes in the Bogeyman, and unicorns.

These statements are useless. The "I think X actually believes Y..." formula is 100% speculation.

There's a reason Foligno isn't around. There's also a reason we didn't pay him 3.1 X 3 years. That reason? Murray believes Noesen and I guess Zibanejad can play a similar role - for less $$. I like the sound of Methot, but getting a D-man wasn't the only reason we traded Foligno - he had become redundant. Whether you want to say it's Player X or Player Y that made him redundant, I don't really care, but my take is that Murray believes Noesen's upside is higher than Foligno's and he cashed in the chips now.

Foligno isn't around because we didn't want to pay him $3+ mil, and because we didn't view him as anything other than a fringe top 6er / tweener. I agree that the organization clearly believes that they can slot someone else in there for cheaper to get similar production (i.e., Latendresse, Regin, Silf, etc.).

Where you err is in assuming that trading Foligno had anything whatsoever to do with the organization's opinion of Noesen. There's no connection there. Noesen is not going to play in the NHL this year. We weren't going to get Methot for Noesen (no chance). What we did with Foligno literally has nothing to do with Noesen, and doesn't tell us anything about the organization's opinion of the latter -- just the former.

The other issue is that your original statement ("I think from what I read that management is much higher on Noeson then what they thought Foligno could be") made it sound like you were saying that you thought BM was higher on 19 year old Noesen than 19 year old Foligno, which to me is absolute horse Dung. Every organization is high on its 1st round draft picks, and thinks/hopes they will become top 6ers / impact players.

Yeah, anyway: trading Foligno tells us nothing about the organization's opinion of Noesen in particular. It speaks to Foligno, to BM's sense of how he could be replaced for cheaper (either via UFA or internally). Don't conflate the issues.

First, you'd make a crap GM if you didn't move Methot and his 3 million dollars out for a solid prospect who was drafted in the late 1st round and is looking more and more like a steal. You'd look particularly silly when your owner asked you why Methot was penciled in behind The Wiz and Jack Johnson on the left side D depth chart. Noesen would have gotten you Methot - no issue at all IMO - unless you suck at amateur scouting, which I can buy the BJs do.

Second, all I said is I think Murray likes Noesen's upside - and by that I mean offense more than anything, although I also think Noesen's defensive game is going to be better - better than he likes Foligno's ceiling. Of course it's speculation, what else would it be on a hockey forum? It's an opinion man, as in: in my opine, I think he will be a better player - from watching him, reading about him, etc. And I also get the sense that Murray and co. hold the kid in really high regard and I think that they think his upside is higher than a tweener as you called Foligno. Therefore I think they think his upside is higher. Speculation? No Dung sherlock.






EDIT: It might be Tyutin, not the Wiz.

Big Ev wrote:Man, I feel like creating a Sens prospects site. Would anyone actually be interested though?

What kind of site?

Big Ev wrote:Man, I feel like creating a Sens prospects site. Would anyone actually be interested though?

Like this... http://www.sabresprospects.com/

Would be cool if you pulled it off properly for sure.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say it again:

I think Murray's believes Noesen's upside is higher (than Foligno's).

I think Murray believes in the Bogeyman, and unicorns.

These statements are useless. The "I think X actually believes Y..." formula is 100% speculation.

There's a reason Foligno isn't around. There's also a reason we didn't pay him 3.1 X 3 years. That reason? Murray believes Noesen and I guess Zibanejad can play a similar role - for less $$. I like the sound of Methot, but getting a D-man wasn't the only reason we traded Foligno - he had become redundant. Whether you want to say it's Player X or Player Y that made him redundant, I don't really care, but my take is that Murray believes Noesen's upside is higher than Foligno's and he cashed in the chips now.

Foligno isn't around because we didn't want to pay him $3+ mil, and because we didn't view him as anything other than a fringe top 6er / tweener. I agree that the organization clearly believes that they can slot someone else in there for cheaper to get similar production (i.e., Latendresse, Regin, Silf, etc.).

Where you err is in assuming that trading Foligno had anything whatsoever to do with the organization's opinion of Noesen. There's no connection there. Noesen is not going to play in the NHL this year. We weren't going to get Methot for Noesen (no chance). What we did with Foligno literally has nothing to do with Noesen, and doesn't tell us anything about the organization's opinion of the latter -- just the former.

The other issue is that your original statement ("I think from what I read that management is much higher on Noeson then what they thought Foligno could be") made it sound like you were saying that you thought BM was higher on 19 year old Noesen than 19 year old Foligno, which to me is absolute horse Dung. Every organization is high on its 1st round draft picks, and thinks/hopes they will become top 6ers / impact players.

Yeah, anyway: trading Foligno tells us nothing about the organization's opinion of Noesen in particular. It speaks to Foligno, to BM's sense of how he could be replaced for cheaper (either via UFA or internally). Don't conflate the issues.

First, you'd make a crap GM if you didn't move Methot and his 3 million dollars out for a solid prospect who was drafted in the late 1st round and is looking more and more like a steal. You'd look particularly silly when your owner asked you why Methot was penciled in behind The Wiz and Jack Johnson on the left side D depth chart. Noesen would have gotten you Methot - no issue at all IMO - unless you suck at amateur scouting, which I can buy the BJs do.

Second, all I said is I think Murray likes Noesen's upside - and by that I mean offense more than anything, although I also think Noesen's defensive game is going to be better - better than he likes Foligno's ceiling. Of course it's speculation, what else would it be on a hockey forum? It's an opinion man, as in: in my opine, I think he will be a better player - from watching him, reading about him, etc. And I also get the sense that Murray and co. hold the kid in really high regard and I think that they think his upside is higher than a tweener as you called Foligno. Therefore I think they think his upside is higher. Speculation? No Dung sherlock.






EDIT: It might be Tyutin, not the Wiz.

First, Noesen does not land you Methot -- mostly because CLB needs players for now, not later, but also because OTT has to worry about salary (as in, when salary comes in, it also has to go out), and because Methot is an established commodity (a 3/4 Dman in the NHL) and Noesen is not established and has never played a game in the NHL. There are literally half a dozen reasons why neither franchise trades one guy for the other. Looking at the Turris/Rundblad deal, I'd also say that the NOW/potential factor is HUGE when it comes to determining value -- hence why OTT had to add to the deal.

Second, if you had said "this is my opinion, and that's it", you never would have got this from me, and you would have not looked so ridiculous. Have an opinion, bake a cake to celebrate it, but don't tell me your opinion is BM's. What you're saying now is a lot different from -- and more sensible, and more defensible, than -- the statement in the earlier post that caught my attention.

Finally, comparing Foligino at 23, with 5 years of NHL experience, with Noesen, at 19 with 0 NHL games, really doesn't make much sense. It's apples and oranges. Foligno is an established, known quantity (which is exactly why BM traded him -- he had formed a full opinion on him), whereas Noesen is a ball of potential and nothing else (BM has hopes, but he doesn't know what he is or might be at this early stage). What irked me particularly was your suggestion (or so the wording suggested) that 'BM thinks higher of 19 year old Noesen than he did 19 year old Foligno,' which to me is pure BS. Every 1st rounder (forward) is viewed as a guy who will hopefully play in the top 6 -- it's not like they're looking at 19 year old Stone, or Zbad, or Silf, or Noesen as potential 3rd liners. Same with 19 year old Foligno.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say it again:

I think Murray's believes Noesen's upside is higher (than Foligno's).

I think Murray believes in the Bogeyman, and unicorns.

These statements are useless. The "I think X actually believes Y..." formula is 100% speculation.

There's a reason Foligno isn't around. There's also a reason we didn't pay him 3.1 X 3 years. That reason? Murray believes Noesen and I guess Zibanejad can play a similar role - for less $$. I like the sound of Methot, but getting a D-man wasn't the only reason we traded Foligno - he had become redundant. Whether you want to say it's Player X or Player Y that made him redundant, I don't really care, but my take is that Murray believes Noesen's upside is higher than Foligno's and he cashed in the chips now.

Foligno isn't around because we didn't want to pay him $3+ mil, and because we didn't view him as anything other than a fringe top 6er / tweener. I agree that the organization clearly believes that they can slot someone else in there for cheaper to get similar production (i.e., Latendresse, Regin, Silf, etc.).

Where you err is in assuming that trading Foligno had anything whatsoever to do with the organization's opinion of Noesen. There's no connection there. Noesen is not going to play in the NHL this year. We weren't going to get Methot for Noesen (no chance). What we did with Foligno literally has nothing to do with Noesen, and doesn't tell us anything about the organization's opinion of the latter -- just the former.

The other issue is that your original statement ("I think from what I read that management is much higher on Noeson then what they thought Foligno could be") made it sound like you were saying that you thought BM was higher on 19 year old Noesen than 19 year old Foligno, which to me is absolute horse Dung. Every organization is high on its 1st round draft picks, and thinks/hopes they will become top 6ers / impact players.

Yeah, anyway: trading Foligno tells us nothing about the organization's opinion of Noesen in particular. It speaks to Foligno, to BM's sense of how he could be replaced for cheaper (either via UFA or internally). Don't conflate the issues.

First, you'd make a crap GM if you didn't move Methot and his 3 million dollars out for a solid prospect who was drafted in the late 1st round and is looking more and more like a steal. You'd look particularly silly when your owner asked you why Methot was penciled in behind The Wiz and Jack Johnson on the left side D depth chart. Noesen would have gotten you Methot - no issue at all IMO - unless you suck at amateur scouting, which I can buy the BJs do.

Second, all I said is I think Murray likes Noesen's upside - and by that I mean offense more than anything, although I also think Noesen's defensive game is going to be better - better than he likes Foligno's ceiling. Of course it's speculation, what else would it be on a hockey forum? It's an opinion man, as in: in my opine, I think he will be a better player - from watching him, reading about him, etc. And I also get the sense that Murray and co. hold the kid in really high regard and I think that they think his upside is higher than a tweener as you called Foligno. Therefore I think they think his upside is higher. Speculation? No Dung sherlock.






EDIT: It might be Tyutin, not the Wiz.

First, Noesen does not land you Methot -- mostly because CLB needs players for now, not later, but also because OTT has to worry about salary (as in, when salary comes in, it also has to go out), and because Methot is an established commodity (a 3/4 Dman in the NHL) and Noesen is not established and has never played a game in the NHL. There are literally half a dozen reasons why neither franchise trades one guy for the other. Looking at the Turris/Rundblad deal, I'd also say that the NOW/potential factor is HUGE when it comes to determining value -- hence why OTT had to add to the deal.

Second, if you had said "this is my opinion, and that's it", you never would have got this from me, and you would have not looked so ridiculous. Have an opinion, bake a cake to celebrate it, but don't tell me your opinion is BM's. What you're saying now is a lot different from -- and more sensible, and more defensible, than -- the statement in the earlier post that caught my attention.

Finally, comparing Foligino at 23, with 5 years of NHL experience, with Noesen, at 19 with 0 NHL games, really doesn't make much sense. It's apples and oranges. Foligno is an established, known quantity (which is exactly why BM traded him -- he had formed a full opinion on him), whereas Noesen is a ball of potential and nothing else (BM has hopes, but he doesn't know what he is or might be at this early stage). What irked me particularly was your suggestion (or so the wording suggested) that 'BM thinks higher of 19 year old Noesen than he did 19 year old Foligno,' which to me is pure BS. Every 1st rounder (forward) is viewed as a guy who will hopefully play in the top 6 -- it's not like they're looking at 19 year old Stone, or Zbad, or Silf, or Noesen as potential 3rd liners. Same with 19 year old Foligno.

What a ridiculous argument we're having. It's unbelievable.

I think Murray likes Noesen's upside more than he likes Foligno's. I don't know how else to say it. It's my opinion that Murray thinks Noesen's a Dustin Brown style player, and thus a 2nd liner as opposed to Foligno who may well have reached most of his potential by now.

I also think Columbus would be quite shrewd to turn Methot, a defender who they have an abundance of, for a high level forward prospect. I think they'd do Noesen for Methot straight up, nice prospect for young NHLer who's not in their future plans. Whether you think they do it or not is also speculation.

To your third point, to me it's asset management. The Sens know Noesen's coming up and IMO, they're confident he'll be able to take Foligno's minutes and possibly more. That's my opinion, and if not him, then Zibanejad etc. In other words, they feel they have other players in the system that made Foligno redundant.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Man, I feel like creating a Sens prospects site. Would anyone actually be interested though?

What kind of site?

stempniaksen wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Man, I feel like creating a Sens prospects site. Would anyone actually be interested though?

Like this... http://www.sabresprospects.com/

Would be cool if you pulled it off properly for sure.

Yeah something like that. I think the "rankings" section is pretty amateur on that Sabres site, so something better than that for sure. Hockey's Future just doesn't cut it IMO.

For baseball I like www.SoxProspects.com.

There's also this guy: https://twitter.com/sensprospects

Riprock wrote:There's also this guy: https://twitter.com/sensprospects

yeah but a site/blog/rankings etc. would be better

Why didn't he do it then?

Riprock wrote:Why didn't he do it then?

lol dunno, guess he just wants to keep things to 140 characters