• Draft and Trade Talk Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • J J Jan 17, 2013 4:32 PM Flag

    Seeking validation...please rate my team!

    I'm not a fan of your choices, but most of it is just unvalidated preferential stuff.

    Like I am not sold enough on Rask to draft him (mostly due to his cost - second round pick). In a shortened season, good teams like Boston will have less patience than normal for an inconsistent goalie like Rask.

    I love Backstrom this year, but why did you reach for him then draft Toews with your next pick? You already had Crosby at center. Then you drafted Riberio with your 10th pick? Center is very deep and it will be hard for you to move any of these players for value.

    You definetly reached for Backstrom, Selanne, Semin, and Kunitz.

    You have plus goaltending. You have plus +/-. You need help with PIM, unless you plan on playing Ott the entire season.

    In a season with a lot of available quality Defence, you seemed to miss on that mark completely. You must have the 10th, 11th, or worst defence in your league.

    You will have to trade to improve.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The other thing I agree with is the weakness on the PIM/HITS front. That I will have to address.

    • I appreciate your insight. Allow me to explain myself:

      *Goalies went quickly this year. By the time I drafted Rask, Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne, Fleury, and Miller had all been taken. I liked Rask as the fourth best option in the draft, so I was happy to get him when I did. I disagree with your opinion that he is "inconsistent". History shows anything but. Who else will Boston turn to?

      *Through the beginning and middle of the draft, I went for the best player available. That is how you wind up with the best team. Drafting for positional needs (other than goaltending) early on is a good way to leave a lot of talent on the table. This way, I can--as you suggest--trade from a position of strength for a position of weakness once the dust settles. I do agree, however, that Centre is the deepest position, and thus somewhat less valuable than LW/RW--however, our lineup has two C spots and three UTIL spots that would allow me to play up to 5 centres on any given night.

      *I'm always curious to hear different peoples' perspective on drafting defencemen. I think that it's a complete waste of time while there are still quality forwards on the table. There are a few "elite" defencemen in the league (that still put up far fewer points than the equivalent "elite" forward), but other than that, the vast majority of draftable fantasy defencemen will put up ~35-40pts a season. I find that I can get this type of player very late in the draft, or find him in the FA pool.

      Just my approach. Again, thanks for the input.

      • 1 Reply to Conal
      • You did not say you had util positions available, so all those centers make sense now.

        The Rask choice is obviously highly preferential with no wrong answer. In regards to the "history shows anything but" statement on his consistency. I remember Rask taking a huge amount of the blame when Boston lost to philly in the 2010 playoffs, while being up 3-0 in the series. He also had a series of rough games in 2011 too, during the season - losing more than winning. I'm a Boston fan so I watch them often. He was outstanding covering for Thomas in 2012, though.

        Disagree with your blueliner hypothesis. Mostly because I weigh relative positional value in a bseball-sabremetric way. It is something I really don't want to defend and contend with on a yahoo hockey forum. I get your point though.

        Thanks for the reply.


Expert Fantasy Advice

Sign up for Yahoo Fantasy Football