Mock Draft Analysis – Part 3

09/01/2010 12:05 AM -  Steven Ives

Tuukka Rask

This article will be divided into six parts. In each part, I will provide my analysis of two teams that participated in the 12-team Mock Draft that was completed recently. For full mock draft rankings, be sure to purchase a copy of the 2010-11 Draft Guide.

For Part 3, I will critique teams picked by new writer Garrett Rees and The Program director Chris Wassel. (round selected in parentheses)


C: Steven Stamkos (1)
C: John Tavares (8)
LW: Rick Nash (4)
LW: Wojtek Wolski (9)
RW: Ales Hemsky (5)
RW: Nathan Horton (7)
D: Mike Green (2)
D: Stephane Robidas (12)
D: Joni Pitkanen (13)
D: Andy Greene (15)
G: Tuukka Rask (3)
G: Marty Turco (6)
BN: Brian Elliott (10)
BN: Peter Mueller (11)
BN: Brenden Morrow (14)
BN: Patric Hornqvist (16)

WHAT WENT RIGHT: I think pretty much everything – I like this squad. Stamkos should go over 100+ points this year and Tavaras could be this year’s Stamkos. 80+ points for the young Islander phenom is not out of the question in my mind, making Garrett’s center tandem one of the tops in the league. I also love what Garrett did on the blueline. Green in the second round is a great pick — he could outscore the fourth best D-man in the league by an incredible 30 points, making him even worthy to take in the late first round. Then I thought Garrett got three nice value picks to fill out his blueline very late in the draft — Robidas (12), Pitkanen (13) and Greene (15).

WHAT WENT WRONG: I thought Rask in the third round was a huge reach. Boston is a mediocre team at best this year, especially if they trade Marc Savard, a likely scenario. Their blueline is quite thin behind Zdeno Chara and they won’t score a lot, making it very hard for a goalie without a full season under his belt. I’m not saying Rask is a BAD pick, just that comparable goaltenders were tabbed three and four rounds later. Also, like many owners in the league, Garrett seemed to complete eschew the PiM category. Overall, however, Garrett’s team should seriously compete, in my mind.


C: Henrik Sedin (2)
C: Derek Roy (9)
LW: Thomas Vanek (6)
LW: Sean Avery (12)
RW: Bobby Ryan (3)
RW: Jamie Langenbrunner (11)
D: Tobias Enstrom (4)
D: Tomas Kaberle (7)
D: Lubomir Visnovsky (8)
D: Johnny Boychuk (13)
G: Roberto Luongo (1)
G: Antero Niittymaki (5)
BN: Dan Ellis (10)
BN: Brooks Laich (14)
BN: Wade Redden (15)
BN: Vinny Prospal (16)

WHAT WENT RIGHT: If the Sharks DO NOT sign Antti Niemi and Nittymaki starts for them, Chris will dominate in goal with Luongo and Niittymaki (read: whoever starts 60 for San Jose). If Niittymaki loses his job, though, it might be a long year. I also think Chris made some nice value picks: Henrik Sedin in the second is a steal, while Ryan (3) Vanek (6) and Kaberle (7) were all great picks.

WHAT WENT WRONG: As I’ve said in the chatroom, Enstrom is the 4th round was one of the biggest reaches in the draft. Robert waited until the 7th to get Streit, a better version of Enstrom, in essence. Chris lost his head a bit with two more blueline selections Boychuk in the 13th (20 points would be a stretch) and the soon-to-be-legendary selection of Wade Redden, which could single-handedly threaten our collective status as “experts”. Editor’s note: Chris expanded on his Redden selection by saying, “Tradition dictates I do one of those throwaway picks. I want to see if something really wakes him up.” Hmmm.

Questions? Comments? Complaints? Compliments? Ideas? Email Ian at Or follow on Twitter for up-to-the-minute updates, general hockey discussion, and any fantasy hockey questions that you have. You can also become a fan on Facebook.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.