Bacchus 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 We lost one of our D prospects ... one that many thought would be battling for a spot on the roster for number 6-7 D next season. http://www4.sportsnet.ca/nhl_signings_2007/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ShortHanded 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 We lost one of our D prospects ... one that many thought would be battling for a spot on the roster for number 6-7 D next season. http://www4.sportsnet.ca/nhl_signings_2007/ I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember Gainey saying he expected him to sign elsewhere... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cfposi 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I don't know if he can be considered a prospect...we didn't draft him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simonus 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I don't know if he can be considered a prospect...we didn't draft him. we didnt draft beauregard, cote, or danis. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cfposi 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I don't know if he can be considered a prospect...we didn't draft him. we didnt draft beauregard, cote, or danis. Ok...let me clarify...Aside from the point that we didn't draft him, it was always my impression that he was picked up mainly to help develop the younger guys in Hamilton. I don't think anyone expected him to crack the lineup (with the exception of injury call-ups). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simonus 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 that was generally my understanding as well. Essentially I agree with your restatement insofar that drafting is not dispositive of prospect status. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
saskhab 8 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Yeah, they only briefly considered him as an injury fill-in and nothing more. TB probably thinks he'll be their #7 d-man because they have a couple of openings there. Battling Rogers and Janik for a top 6 spot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cfposi 0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 that was generally my understanding as well. Essentially I agree with your restatement insofar that drafting is not dispositive of prospect status. Lol...I agree, lets notarize and move on to the next topic. well-put Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JMMR 92 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Oh well too bad time to move on. He did help the devlopment of Obryne very much for this I am happy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JoeLassister 403 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Oh well too bad time to move on. He did help the devlopment of Obryne very much for this I am happy. Yeah but he was getting old anyway. Won't miss him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.