And the third pick in the CLS Re-Draft is....

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 6:15 AM EDT in General Comment 20 comments

With the third overall pick in the CLS 2009 NHL Re-Draft, the Tampa Bay Lightning will pick...Swedish goaltender Henrik Lundqvist

I have reasons for this. Lots and lots of reasons. And I'll even share a few of them with you right now.

What's the very first position people complain about on a hockey team? Goaltending. What's the very first thing people start picking apart when a team isn't doing well? Goaltending. What's the very first thing people talk about when it comes to making playoffs? Goaltending. What's the first thing a team needs but can never get because people hoard them like gold? Goaltending.

I'm sure you see my point.

If I'm going to be playing the GM role, then I'm going to be thinking like a GM. I wanted a player who's consistent and can perform well under pressure. One who's a proven veteran, but who still has plenty of years left in him. Almost all of the marquée goaltenders are over 30 years old, and I wanted to pick someone who's around 30, but preferably younger. That doesn't leave one with a lot of options.

I was down to Niklas Backstrom from Minnesota or Henrik Lundqvist from the NY Rangers. Roberto Luongo was mentioned, but he's not very consistent and tends to buckle under pressure. Regardless of what many people may think, that's how he is, and that didn't fit into my criteria.

Backstrom has a great reputation, and is a solid goaltender, but he also played in Jacques Lemaire's system. While the defense in front of him didn't have any big names, Lemaire is a stickler for overall team defense. So that weighed in against him. It's why I dismissed Jonas Hiller from Anaheim from the start - Hiller had Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger playing in front of him, so his stats aren't a true representation of how well he plays.

Lundqvist, on the other hand, has played extremely consistently and has very similar numbers to Backstrom. But, surprisingly, doesn't get the good press that Backstrom does - despite playing in New York City. He's also played under two different coaches so far which, in turn, have dictated different playing styles. And has had a notoriously inconsistent defensive corps in front of him recently as well. Still, his numbers stay about the same. I mean that in a good way, of course.

And it doesn't hurt that Hank helped Sweden win an Olympic gold medal at the last Olympics when he was only 23 years old.

Sure, I could've gone with a so-called franchise player. I could've picked someone like Vincent Lecavalier with the Lightning's first pick. But, to be honest, I'm far more interested in winning than observing the standard forms of franchise building. Goaltending was the priority. Goal scoring isn't. At least, not yet.

I think it's much more important to stop goals being scored on a team than it is scoring goals on the other team. If you score four goals but let in five, then that doesn't get you very far. It's exciting, yes, but you still lose. If you score 1 goal but let in nothing, then that's much more effective. Yeah, it may be a boring way to win - but at least you're still winning.

Oh, by the way, did I forget to mention that there's an NHL 10 simulation happening after we put our teams together? No? Well, there is. And I plan on winning it.

But trust me, this team won't be boring.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

UUUGGGHHH!

Not who I would have picked, but if he stays healthy, you won’t have any problems in the goalie categories. Malkin was the pick though! You gave a gift to the number four team. Was Brian Lawton making your pick for you? Maybe he was dazed and confused again.

WB Philp

by LightningShout on Jul 23, 2009 6:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That’s too bad that you’ve been sucked into the hype of picking a scoring forward. Besides, I’m not sure I would’ve take Malkin, anyways, had I gone that route. I want a winning team, not a team full of egos. Besides, I think having a “face of the franchise” is an overrated thing.

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So basically you decided to take a goalie regardless of if there were multiple players of more value available (which is the case here) and you seem to have a rather poor method of evaluating goalies as you didn’t get the best one out there.

When the Hockey News comes out with their top 50 player list, I dont expect to see Lundqvist in the top 20 and you took him third.

All in all a bad pick.

by PuckStopsHere on Jul 23, 2009 6:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It all depends on how you define “value,” I suppose.

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 7:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And how do you define value?

by PuckStopsHere on Jul 23, 2009 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I define player value within a team context, not necessarily by individual accomplishments.

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And in a team context (whatever that means) how is Lundqvist the third (or higher) most valuable player in the NHL today?

He certainly isn’t considered a candidate for the Hart Trophy – which is the player most valuable to his team. How is that consistent with your evaluation?

by PuckStopsHere on Jul 23, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve never said that he was the third best player in the NHL. All I’ve said is that he’s the best fit for what I was looking for in terms of team building and goaltending. Why do I have to take the third best player in the NHL?

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are building a team from scratch. There is nothing else to build around at this point. You are clearly passing over players who are better than Lundqvist becuase you think he fits well with the zero other players you have (I think it all comes down to the fact that you want a goalie and didn’t care there was no rational goalie to pick in position three).

If you are trying to build the best possible team (and you are right?) you cannot do it by avoiding the best players for an illogical idea about team building.

by PuckStopsHere on Jul 23, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right – I did want a goalie first. That’s because I’ve got a pretty good idea of the kind of team that I want to build. I’m not just going to pick people at random; there is a method to my madness.

People may not agree with it, and that’s alright. It’s not as if we’re playing for money or any important. I have this idea of how a team should be, and I want to see if it’ll work like I think it should. And if I fall flat on my face doing it while people laugh and ridicule me, then I’m okay with that. At least I’ll have tried doing it my own way instead of doing it the way people expect me to.

Just because I’m not being conventional, that doesn’t make me an idiot, after all.

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just because I’m not being conventional, that doesn’t make me an idiot, after all.

No you are not necessarily an idiot, but this pick makes me wonder.

You wanted one position. Nobody reasonable existed to pick who played that position, so you picked it anyway. And the player you picked at that position is not recognized as the best in that position by most (almost all? all?) people who know something about hockey.

by PuckStopsHere on Jul 23, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. I see. Well, time will tell. This is only pick number one.

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pick number one is where you grab your best player. And you chose not to do that. Not a good start.

by PuckStopsHere on Jul 23, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Malkin trumps Lundquist.

by SumOil on Jul 23, 2009 7:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If it had come down to Kovalchuk and Lundquist, then I see you point. A guy who just won art ross and conn smythe, trumps a goalie that hasnt reached SCF. We have seen even goalies like Osgood winning the cup.Also if you had taken Lidstrom, i wouldnt have been so critical.

by SumOil on Jul 23, 2009 7:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s an entire team that makes it into playoffs. Not one guy. And that’s all this is so far. One guy.

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're picking for the wrong kind of "Fantasy" hockey team!

You didn’t pick the dapper King Henrik based on fantasy hockey value…did you? You picked him based on your own personal fantasy rankings…didn’t you? I guess that’s why the homely Malkin wasn’t even in the running. (Just kidding!)

WB Philp

by LightningShout on Jul 23, 2009 8:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So much for being taken seriously….

Cassie
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning Blog. It's what's for dinner.

by Cassie McClellan on Jul 23, 2009 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

get over it.

by Natty Bumppo on Jul 28, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m on board with the lundqvist pick. if i’m a GM working within a tight salary cap, i don’t overpay for a goalie and i don’t give a goalie a longterm deal….UNLESS he is a bonafide top-tier goalie that can anchor my team for years to come. there are only so many brodeurs, roys, haseks. for me, lundqvist is that guy over luongo and over the older netminders (tim thomas, nabokov, kiprusoff). well played. now target a monster defenseman and a two-way center and you’ll be on your way.

by Natty Bumppo on Jul 28, 2009 11:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Raw Charge: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Raw Charge -

The static cling that brings Tampa Bay Lightning fans together